Iniciado un despido colectivo y alcanzado un acuerdo entre los representantes de los trabajadores y el empresario en el periodo de consultas, se plantea si la impugnación individual de cada despido puede cuestionar la concurrencia de las causas que lo motivan. El diferente tratamiento normativo —laboral, concursal, procesal— y la distinta dicción sobre esta materia en procesos de naturaleza colectiva —modificación sustancial, movilidad, suspensión contractual— obligan a precisar una solución, sustantiva y procesalmente determinante.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

In accordance with EU legislation, Member States have the power to limit the obligation of public guarantee institutions to pay employees’ claims in the event of their employer’s insolvency. The Court of Justice found to be compliant a national provision (Bulgarian law) that confines the protection given by said guarantee institutions to those employment relationships that have not ended within the three months prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

Todos los supuestos de extinción en que ésta es adoptada por voluntad del trabajador, pero derivada de una decisión unilateral de la empresa, han de tener el mismo tratamiento por parte de los Estados miembros. Así lo señala el Tribunal de de Justicia en un reciente pronunciamiento en el que resuelve una cuestión cuya trascendencia práctica desborda el supuesto planteado específicamente.

On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.

When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).

El orden social mantiene no sólo su competencia, sino la aplicación del régimen jurídico de la sucesión laboral de empresa, aun cuando exista un auto del juez del concurso por el que se exonere de deudas a la empresa adquirente.

Un reciente pronunciamiento del orden contencioso-administrativo resulta sumamente útil en una controversia que parece irresoluble. La sentencia se pronuncia sobre un supuesto fáctico que precisa aplicar la Ley Concursal en su redacción anterior a la reforma del 2014.