In re: JEFFREY J. PROSSER v. Gomez, Chief Judge Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1 a December 1, 2009

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-2626
_____________
In re: JEFFREY J. PROSSER,
Appellant
(D.V.I. 07-cv-00105)
In re: INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION COMPANY, LLC;
INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION COMPANY, INC.,
Appellants
(D.V.I. 07-cv-00106)
Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands,
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
(Civil Nos. 07-cv-00105 and 07-cv-106)
District Judge: Hon. Curtis V. Gomez, Chief Judge
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 1, 2009
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: July 23, 2010)
OPINION
McKEE, Chief Judge.
Jeffrey J. Prosser and Innovative Communication Company, LLC, appeal from an

-- 1 of 2 --

2
order of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that the Terms
and Conditions of a Settlement Agreement entered into by Prosser, Emerging
Communications, Inc., and Innovative Communication Co. (collectively the “Debtors”)
and Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative, Greenlight Capital Qualified, L.P., Greenlight
Capital, L.P., and Greenlight Capital Offshore, Ltd. (collectively the “Creditors”) is not
an executory contract that could be assumed by Prosser and Innovative Communication
under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 365.
Inasmuch as the background to the execution of the Settlement Agreement is
recited in the district court’s Memorandum and Opinion, we find it unnecessary to repeat
it here. See In re Innovative Communication Company, LLC; In re Jeffrey J. Prosser,
2008 WL 2275397 (D. Virgin Islands May 30, 2008). Moreover, in its Memorandum and
Opinion, the district court has carefully and fully explained its reasons for affirming the
bankruptcy court’s holding that the Terms and Conditions of the Settlement Agreement
do not constitute an executory contract that could be assumed by Prosser and Innovative
Communication pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. We can add little to the district court’s
thoughtful analysis and discussion.
Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district
court’s Memorandum and Opinion without further elaboration.

-- 2 of 2 --