1. Plan de liquidación concursal con exoneración del pasivo laboral y de la Seguridad Social sin oposición de afectados
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
Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.
- LÍMITE DE LOS CRÉDITOS POR SALARIO E INDEMNIZACIÓN EN EL PROCESO CONCURSAL
- 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
Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities against another party (“Party Two”).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on July 30, 2013, that a reorganized Chapter 11 debtor could reopen its closed case, enabling the debtor assignee to enforce a purchase option in a real property lease despite the lease’s “anti-assignment provisions.” In re Lazy Days’ RV Center Inc., 2013 WL 3886735, *5 (3d Cir. July 30, 2013).
Cramdown Plan Stays Suits Against Corporate Parent
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 1, 2013, that a bankruptcy court had not erred in applying a prime plus 1.75 percent interest rate to a secured lender’s $39 million claim under a "cramdown" plan of reorganization. Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC (In the Matter of Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 776317 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013).