Issue link: https://mbozikis.ufcontent.com/i/1422521
137 may agree. 11 U.S.C. § 1113(d)(2). In the event that the court fails to issue a ruling within such thirty-day period (or such other period as agreed to by the trustee and the employee representative), the trustee may terminate or alter any provisions of the collective bargaining agreement pending a ruling by the court. Id. The court is authorized to issue protective orders to the extent necessary to prevent disclosure of any information provided to the employee representative where such disclosure could compromise the debtor's position with respect to its competitors. 11 U.S.C. § 1113(d)(3). During a period when the collective bargaining agreement remains in effect, after notice and a hearing, the court may authorize the trustee to implement interim modifications to the terms and conditions of such agreement if the modifications are essential to the continuation of the debtor's business or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the debtor's estate. 11 U.S.C. § 1113(e). At least one court has stated, in no uncertain terms, that Section 1113(e) cannot be used to permanently alter a CBA. See In re Russell Transfer, Inc., 48 B.R. 241, 243-44 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1985). Any hearing for such interim relief is to be scheduled in accordance with the trustee's needs, and the notice period for such hearing is often quite short. See In re United Press Int'l, Inc., 134 B.R. 507, 513 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (finding that one day's notice of a hearing on interim modifications was sufficient). Additionally, there is no explicit requirement for the trustee to negotiate with, or provide information about the proposed interim modifications to, the employee representative prior to filing a motion for such relief. 11 U.S.C. § 1113(e). The standard for approving interim relief is phrased in the alternative ("if essential to the continuation of the debtor's business, or in order to avoid irreparable damage to the estate"), which suggests that a trustee need only satisfy one of them to prevail. See United Press Int'l, 134 B.R. at 514. At any rate, Congress likely intended that the standard for interim relief be markedly different than that for rejection. See, e.g., United Food and Com. Workers Union, Local 328 v. Almac's, Inc., 90 F.3d 1, 6