In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law.

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. See, e.g., JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v.

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.

El Real Decreto-ley 11/2013, de 2 de agosto, para la protección de los trabajadores a tiempo parcial y otras medidas urgentes en el orden económico y social, albergó diversas disposiciones de tipo so- cio-laboral, algunas de ellas referidas a reestructu- raciones laborales en empresas concursadas.

Quienes reclaman contra alguna medida colectiva de reestructuración (despidos, suspensiones, modificaciones sustanciales, movilidad geográfica, descuelgues de convenio) suelen denunciar que durante el período de consultas no se ha negociado de buena fe. Cuando las sentencias consideran que así ha sucedido declaran la nulidad de la correspondiente decisión, por disponerlo la Ley. Aunque suele pensarse en la negociación ex fide bona como deber de la empresa, hay que recordar su carácter bilateral.