1. El Estatuto de los Trabajadores (LET) prevé en su artículo 50 la posibilidad de que el trabajador reclame la extinción de su contrato, entre otros motivos, por falta de pago o retrasos continuados por parte del empleador en el abono de los salarios pactados (art. 50.1b LET).

1. Excepción al principio rogatorio: la obligación de solicitar concurso de acreedores ante el incumplimiento empresarial generalizado de las obligaciones salariales y de Seguridad Social

1. LÍMITE DE LOS CRÉDITOS POR SALARIO E INDEMNIZACIÓN EN EL PROCESO CONCURSAL

1. Tanto el salario como las indemnizaciones por despido gozan de una serie de garantías en el art. 32 del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (LET).

A) Impugnación individual y plural del despido no impugnado colectivamente

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.