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

Royal decree-law 4/2014, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt: amends the Insolvency Act and the exemption on mandatory takeover bids for rescue operations, and extends the special regime for calculating losses due tue impairment

On March 18, 2014, the Bank of Spain gave credit institutions consistent criteria to apply the provisions of Circular 4/2004 to restructuring transactions resulting from the refinancing agreements regulated under the Insolvency Act, complying with the stipulations of Additional Provision One of Royal Decree Law 4/2014, which assigned the drafting of those criteria to the Bank of Spain.

Madrid Commercial Court No. 6 order of October 7, 2013: acquirer of a production unit subrogated in employment liabilities because the shareholders and directors had established the company specifically to acquire the insolvent company ("Marco Aldany Case")

The court did not rule out liability for employment obligations because the partners - directors of the insolvent company wished to acquire the production unit through a company created specifically to acquire it.

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.

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 court ruled to allow the sale of the production unit with assignment to the acquirer of the agreements involving the insolvent companies affected by the transfer of the production unit and necessary for its continuance.

For insolvency purposes, the concept of “group” is defined in article 42 of the Spanish Commercial Code, which refers only to groups subject to control that have the legal obligation to consolidate their accounts, while excluding horizontal or co-ordinated groups.³