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.

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.

This website uses its own cookies and those of third parties to analyze the use of this site to improve its contents and your user experience. If you continue to browse, we understand you accept their use. You can change your configuration or obtain further information here.

The Official Journal of the European Union of July 31, 2014, published the European Commission Guidelines establishing the conditions under which state aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty can be considered compatible with the domestic market. The Commission has been applying these Guidelines since August

A credit institution that is the indirect owner of an insolvent company’s share capital is not a person closely related to the insolvent company, unless it uses an intermediary to avoid that status.

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.

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).

CHANGES TO THE INSOLVENCY AND RESTRUCTURING COMPANIES CODE

The changes to the Insolvency and Restructuring Companies Code, as established in Decree-Law No. 79/2017 of June 30, entered into force on July 1 2017.

Noteworthy changes

A. Special revitalization proceeding (Processo Especial de Revitalizao "PER")

1. This proceeding is now only available to companies.

2. Requirements for this proceeding were revised.

a. For every company:

The lender’s credit in respect of the joint-and-several guarantor declared insolvent is contingent unless existence of p

The fumus boni iuris used to justify the adoption of interim measures, involving blocking the enforcement of a financial guarantee, was counteracted since the pledge was fully enforceable under Luxembourg law, which was the governing law.

The parties had agreed to institute a financial guarantee on certain shares owned by the insolvent company and the pledge was made subject to Luxembourg law, because the account where the shares were deposited was located in Luxembourg.