The ruling called for rescission of previously agreed valuations to divide a company’s assets into two portions in a process for total spin-off in favour of two pre-existing companies. One of the beneficiaries was ordered to refund the other beneficiary company (undergoing insolvency proceedings) the excess valuation the former h ad received during the total spin-off.

The Madrid and Barcelona Provincial Courts took different positions on the classification of a creditor’s credit in the insolvency of the joint and several guarantor: the former classed it as an insolvency credit; the latter classed it as a contingent claim.

These resolutions clarify the circumstances in which an appraisal certificate is required to create and amend mortgages following the reform of the Rules of Civil Law Procedure under Act 1/2013.

Act 14/2013, of September 27, 2013, favoring entrepreneurs and their internationalization (the “Act”), introduces a wide range of reforms on insolvency, corporate, tax and labor matters. Regarding insolvencies, it takes a more flexible approach to the quorum of financial creditors required for court-sanctioned refinancing agreements and it regulates out-of-court agree-ments for payment as mechanisms for out-of-court negotiation with creditors.

REFINANCING AGREEMENTS

The Madrid Provincial Court (Section 28) ruling of December 7, 2012, and the Barcelona Provincial Court (Section 15) ruling of October 4, 2012, judged the insolvency categorisation of a credit the receivers had categorised as subordinate because they held that the creditor company belonged to the same corporate group as the insolvent company.⁶ In both cases, the provincial courts analysed the concept of group for the purposes of insolvency before and after the reform of the Insolvency Act introduced under Act 38/2011.

The Supreme Court clarified the insolvency categorisation for interest rate swap contracts, classifying them as insolvency credits, as they fail to meet the functional synallagma requirement, which establishes functional reciprocal obligations.

RENTA CORPORACIÓN: CENTRE OF MAIN INTERESTS IN SPAIN

On the advice of Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, RENTA CORPORACIÓN REAL ESTATE S.A. (“Renta Corporación”) applied for a declaration of insolvency jointly with three of its Spanish subsidiaries (RENTA CORPORACIÓN REAL ESTATE ES S.A.U., RENTA CORPORACIÓN REAL ESTATE FINANCE S.L.U. and RENTA CORPORACIÓN CORE BUSINESS S.L.U.).  

SUPREME COURT RULING NO. 44/2103, OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013: INSOLVENCY CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCE LEASE INSTALMENTS DEPENDS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT

Supreme Court finds that where a finance lease agreement releases the lessor from liability for defects, credits resulting from payments due before the declaration of insolvency and for those falling due after it are insolvency credits  

The Supreme Court rescinded a payment made to the creditor that petitioned for compulsory insolvency in a case where the creditor withdrew its petition and the debtor applied for voluntary bankruptcy several weeks later.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court made the following significant assertions in respect of insolvency rescission of payments:

Under Additional Provision Four of the Insolvency Act,¹ which regulates the courts’ sanction of refinancing agreements, the effects of the moratorium established in the agreement will be extended to dissenting financial entities, provided that the conditions specified in that precept are fulfilled (where the requisites imposed under article 71.6 of the Insolvency Act regarding the agreement itself are met and where it has been signed by creditors representing at least 75% of the financial entities’ liabilities at the time of the agreement).