Claims secured with an in rem guarantee continue to accrue default interest charged to the encumbered asset and are classified as privileged.

The Madrid Provincial Court applied the doctrine of the Supreme Court judgment of April 30, 2014, no. 100/2014⁸, and declared the rescission of a personal guarantee granted by the insolvent company to secure the loan granted by a credit institution to a related company.

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

Rescission of an extension to a mortgage granted by the insolvent company securing a preexisting debt of a company of its group

GRANADA  COMMERCIAL COURT NO. 1  RULING  OF MARCH 17,  2014; LOGROÑO  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO. 6 DECREE OF APRIL 25, 2014; BARCELONA COURT OF  FIRST INSTANCE NO. 38 DECREE OF MAY 14, 2014; AND PONTEVEDRA COMMERCIAL  COURT NO. 2  DECISION  OF JUNE  6,  2014:  FIRST DECISIONS ON THE  SUSPENSION OF  ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 5  BIS OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT AFTER  ROYAL DECREE-LAW 4/2014

BARCELONA PROVINCIAL COURT (DIVISION 15)  RULING  OF APRIL  3,  2014, NO.
116/2014, AND  LA CORUNA PROVINCIAL COURT (DIVISION 4) RULING OF APRIL  22, 
2014, NO. 118/2014: ARTICLE 90.1.6 OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT REFERS TO THE PLEDGE SECURING FUTURE CREDITS

Two new decisions on article 90.1.6 of the Insolvency Act coincide in stating that the last  point of this precept refers to the pledge securing future credits, and not to the pledge over future credit rights.

INTRODUCTION

Spanish Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, passed on March 7 2014, has considerably changed the rules for the court-sanctioning of so-called Spanish schemes of arrangement. Amongst those changes, the reform has lowered the majorities required to achieve a Spanish scheme. Currently, a majority of at least 51% of the financial liabilities held by all creditors at the time of the refinancing agreement (acuerdo de refinanciación) approval, will suffice to request the insolvency judge to sanction the agreement, so it is considered ringfenced and protected from any challenge for rescission.

Financial institutions are not de facto directors of the insolvent company because they do not significantly affect the performance of the insolvent company’s activity, but only ensure that  certain costs do not affect the repayment of their loan.

The extension of the term for the delivery of works not authorized by the guarantor that had secured  the penalty for delay does not  harm it and, therefore, the guarantee is not  extinguished;  any increase in the  penalty agreed does not extinguish the guarantee,  but  cannot be enforceable on the guarantor that will be liable in the terms agreed in the initial  agreement. This decision discussed the effects  on the guarantee of  the novation of the  secured  obligation agreed without the guarantor’s knowledge.