523 Opinion of the Court. approve that action without more specific findings. Just what findings it thought necessary we do not know. The Terre Haute interests suggest that the deficiency was in the lack of any finding that the lease was burdensome. And they add that only leases found to be burdensome may be rejected and that the evidence would not support any such finding if made. The argument of the Terre Haute interests that only burdensome leases may be rejected is based on certain statements of ours that burdensome leases may be rejected (Palmer v. Webster & Atlas National Bank, 312 U. S. 156, 163; Philadelphia Co. v. Dipple, 312 U. S. 168, 174) and on cases like American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co., 278 F. 842, 844, which hold that an equity receiver may not reject a lease when it does not appear that "in carrying out its affirmative obligations the estate suffers an actual loss as distinguished from the obtaining of a more profitable rental." And an extended analysis of the operations under the lease is made to show that the lease is a valuable asset of the estate and that the debtor received a net financial benefit from it in recent years. We do not need to determine, however, what is the scope of the authority to reject leases under § 77, either by the trustees or pursuant to a plan of reorganization. For here we think that the proposed modifications of the lease contained in the plan were wholly justified. The Terre Haute bondholders are "creditors" of the debtor as defined in § 77 (b), for they are holders of "a claim under . . . an unexpired lease." Sec. 77 (b) (5) provides not only that the plan "may" contain provisions rejecting unexpired leases but also that it "may include any other appropriate provisions not inconsistent with this section." It is also stated in subsection (b) (1) that a plan "shall include provisions modifying or altering the rights of creditors generally, or of any class of them, secured or unsecured, either through Opinion of the Court. 318 U.S. the issuance of new securities of any character or otherwise." In addition, § 77 (b) (4) provides that the plan "shall provide for fixed charges" including "rent for leased railroads" in such an amount "that . . . there shall be adequate coverage of such fixed charges by the probable earnings available for the payment thereof." And § 77 (e) requires the District Court to be satisfied, before approving the plan, that it is "fair and equitable" and "does not discriminate unfairly in favor of any class of creditors." These provisions taken together mean to us that the Commission (and the District Court) have the authority in approving a plan to condition acceptance of a lease on terms which are necessary or appropriate to keep the fixed charges within proper limits or to do equity between claims which arise under the lease and the other claims against the debtor. Like the question whether a lease is burdensome (see Meck & Masten, Railroad Leases and Reorganization, 49 Yale L. Journ. 626, 649), one phase of that problem is whether the lease is worth its annual charge. A disregard in that determination of the sacrifices which other creditors are making would be wholly incompatible with the standards which § 77 has prescribed for reorganization plans. At the same time, if the Commission deems it desirable to keep the leased line in the system, it must necessarily have rather broad discretion in providing modifications of the lease where, as here, the lessor is not being reorganized along with the debtor. For under that assumption the modification must be sufficiently attractive to insure acceptance by the lessor or its creditors. Thus, the question whether a lease should be rejected and, if not, on what terms it should be assumed is one of business judgment. See Mercantile Trust Co. v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 81 F. 254, 259; Park v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 57 F. 799, 802. Certainly there was ample evidence warranting the conclusion of the Commission and the District Court that affirmance of the 523 Opinion of the Court. lease would be unjust from the viewpoint of other creditors. And we could not say that the Commission, exercising its expert judgment, and the District Court, affirming that judgment, were too generous in the offer which is made to the Terre Haute bondholders or that they should have rejected the lease. We are not warranted in upsetting those determinations on review except on a clear showing that the limits of discretion have been exceeded. We cannot say that here. Finally, the Terre Haute interests object to the provisions of the plan which state that the Terre Haute lease shall be rejected as of the date the District Court determines that the Terre Haute bondholders have not consented to the making of a new lease at a reduced rental. They contend that the lessor's claim for damages for breach of the lease must be measured as of the date on which the proceeding was instituted. They further contend that, in the event of rejection of a lease, operation of the leased property subsequent to the commencement of the proceeding must be for the account of the lessor-the latter being liable for all losses and being entitled to any net earnings. On the first point they rely on § 77 (b), which provides that, in case an unexpired lease is rejected, "any person injured by such nonadoption or rejection shall for all purposes of this section be deemed to be a creditor of the debtor to the extent of the actual damage or injury determined in accordance with principles obtaining in equity proceedings." It is argued that, since this Court held that that provision places leases "upon the same basis as executory contracts" (Connecticut Ry. Co. v. Palmer, 305 U. S. 493, 502), the rule governing breaches of an executory contract (Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 198 F. 721, 744; Samuels v. E. F. Drew & Co., 292 F. 734, 739) must be applied here. This Court stated in the Palmer case, however, that the provision in 77 (b) which allows the lessor to prove his "actual dam 513236-43--vol. 318-39 Opinion of the Court. 318 U.S. age or injury determined in accordance with principles obtaining in equity proceedings" does not "refer to any rule for the measure of damages in equity receiverships." 305 U.S. p. 503. Furthermore, as we have noted, § 77 (b) provides not only that a plan may reject unexpired leases but also that it "may include any other appropriate provisions not inconsistent with this section." And § 77 (b) (1) says that a plan "shall include provisions modifying or altering the rights of creditors generally." For the reasons which we have already stated, these provisions give the Commission and the District Court power to adjust the claims under the lease so as to do equity between the various classes of creditors. Deferment of the date as of which the lease shall be rejected is an appropriate exercise of that power. During the § 77 proceedings the stipulated annual rental under the lease has been paid. In view of all the facts, no element of injustice to the lessor is apparent by reason of the deferment of the date as of which its damages, if any, will be measured. For similar reasons we conclude that, in event of rejection of the lease, operation subsequent to the commencement of the proceeding and prior to the rejection need not be for the account of the lessor so as to entitle it to any net earnings. As we have noted, the stipulated annual rental has been paid during the § 77 proceedings. The court order authorizing the payment of interest (which is part of the rental) stated that it should not be construed "to preclude or conclude the Debtor in respect of its right of election to disaffirm or discontinue” the lease. And § 77 (b) provides that the adoption of an unexpired lease by the trustees "shall not preclude a rejection" of it in a plan of reorganization. Furthermore, § 77 (c) (6) provides: "If a lease of a line of railroad is rejected, and if the lessee, with the approval of the judge, shall elect no longer to operate the leased line, it shall be the duty of the lessor 523 Opinion of the Court. at the end of a period to be fixed by the judge to begin the operation of such line, unless the judge, upon the petition of the lessor, shall decree after hearing that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the lessor to operate the said line, in which event it shall be the duty of the lessee to continue operation on or for the account of the lessor until the abandonment of such line is authorized by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended." Sec. 77 (c) (6) contains no express provision that on rejection of a lease the operation of the property by the lessee shall be for the account of the lessor for the period prior to the rejection. But the Terre Haute interests seek to read into § 77 the doctrine of relation back so that in case of a rejection of the lease the lessee's operation during the entire period of bankruptcy is for the account of the lessor, the latter being responsible for all losses and entitled to all the net earnings. That was the general rule governing railroad leases in equity receivership proceedings (See Meck, Railroad Leases and Reorganization, 49 Yale L. Journ. 1401, 1405-1407), at least where the receivers of the lessee made no payments of rent during the term of their possession. Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., supra, 730-732; American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co., 282 F. 523. And see United States Trust Co. v. Wabash Western Ry. Co., 150 U. S. 287. And there is some authority for the view that the same result follows even though unconditional payments of rent have been made in the interim, the theory being that the receiver must "be held to have occupied from the beginning the same position that he ultimately assumes." Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co., 6 F. 2d 547, 549. But see Second Avenue R. Co. v. Robinson, 225 F. 734. Cf. Sunflower Oil Co. v. Wilson, 142 U. S. 313. But the rule was |