Recent piece-meal amendments to the Spanish Insolvency Act 2003 seem to have cumulated into a restructuring solution that is starting to be considered predictable, quick and fair, especially when compared to the pre-amendment system. With its new restructuring approach, which shares many of the same characteristics as an English Scheme of Arrangement, Spanish companies have finally been given much-needed space and time to develop an appropriate restructuring strategy.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Chamber One, Number 134/2016, 04 March
1. BACKGROUND
Article 93(2)(3) of the Spanish Insolvency Act1 (abbrev. LC) states that companies that belong to the same group of companies as the insolvent debtor shall be regarded as parties related to such debtor.
This ruling resolved an issue originating from a personal and joint and several guarantee granted by two companies to secure the obligations assumed by a Dutch company under a junior financing agreement. In light of the Dutch company's default on one of its payments under that agreement, the creditor companies sued the debtor, and the court issued a resolution ordering the debtor company to pay the amount claimed.
Privilege bestowed on (syndicated) creditors instigating the insolvency proceedings against the debtor
Preamble
Equality among all creditors (the so-called par conditio creditorum) is a basic principle under Spanish insolvency rules. Only specific exceptions envisaged in the Spanish insolvency law allow for a particular creditor to take precedence over others in the recovery of its claims against the debtor.
Generally speaking, the following ranking applies to insolvency claims (excluding predeductible claims):
It is known to everyone operating in the Spanish restructuring market that taking security to secure pre-existing indebtedness of a particular borrower is not a risk-free matter.
The Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 dated February 27, 2015 (the “RDL”) seeks to implement urgent measures to, among other things, reduce individual debtors’ financial burden.
Our legislation prohibits (as unconscionable) clauses that, while not negotiated with consumers, require “collateral disproportionate to the risk assumed” (art. 88(1) of the Spanish Consumer and User Protection Act). Note that this rule has not been the subject of any case law development and that the clause that paradoxically could yield to art.
It used to be the case that mortgage creditors could rest easy knowing they held a mortgage, and that they would be repaid with the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged asset, even in the event of an insolvency.