with the conditions contained in the subcontracts. [Shaw] also assumes all obligations and liabilities of, and all claims against, the [Debtor] under the subcontracts as if [Shaw] were the original party to the subcontracts. The [Debtor] is relieved of liability for all claims in connection with performance of the contracts, before or after May 3, 2002, in accordance with the terms of the Sale Order. Paragraph (b)(9) provides further that the TSCA and Tank Contracts “shall remain in full force and effect, except as modified by this Agreement.” The Court finds this argument unpersuasive. The TSCA and Tank Contracts were novated by the Sale Order even without the subsequent Novation Agreement. American Flint Glass Workers Union v. Anchor Resolution Corp., 197 F.3d 76, 80 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). As discussed above, the Sale Order nullified
holding that assumption and assignment pursuant to section 365 effects a novation by operation of law whether or not the obligee consents holding the statute of frauds  does not apply to constructive trusts which are implied by operation of law holding that if claim is not an allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506a by its terms section 1325a5b is inapplicable holding a fine pursuant to section 775083 was discretionary and because it and its accompanying surcharge pursuant to section 93804 were not specifically announced during the sentencing hearing they should be stricken holding that a charter county may assess a fee pursuant to florida statute section 3374013 and is not expressly or impliedly preempted by federal or state law