under section 363(f), the Taylor court noted that in the context of exec-utory leases, section 365 was the exclusive remedy available. Id. at 164-65. The court found “ § 365 is the necessary avenue which this Debtor must follow before this Court could authorize a transfer of the real property ... leased.” Id. at 167. The Bankruptcy Court was not required to apply section 363 in the sale of the Hotel and did not err when it permitted the sale under section 365. See, e.g., In re Qintex Entertainment, Inc. 950 F.2d 1492, 1495-96 (9th Cir.1991) (denying the sale of assets under section 363 because it involved executory contracts which the court determined had to be assumed or rejected as provided in section 365); In Robinson Truck Line, Inc., 47 B.R. 631, 638 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Miss.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re LHD Realty Corp., 20 B.R. 717, 719
recognizing that existence of legitimate business justifications for the exclusive dealing contracts also supports the legality of the global contracts holding that this court generally treats settlement agreements as contracts subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court of federal claims holding that under the bankruptcy act trustee has an affir mative duty to investigate for unscheduled executory contracts and that the statutory presumption of rejection of such contracts not assumed within 60 days is conclusive holding that congress enacted section 365 to provide debtors the authority to reject executory contracts this authority preempts state law by virtue of the supremacy clause and the bankruptcy clause recognizing section 365 as the exclusive remedy in the context of executory contracts