Market participants welcome a clarification extending equitable subordination exemptions granted Sareb to those subsequently purchasing debt from Sareb.

On November 30, 2013, the Spanish legislator approved a recent amendment to Spanish insolvency law, introduced in March 2013, to clarify that a claim transferred to Spanish “bad bank” Sareb, and subsequently sold by Sareb to a third party, will also be exempt from equitable subordination risk.

Background

Act 38/2011, of 10 October, which reforms the former Spanish Insolvency Act, introduces a number of measures, including the possibility of obtaining court approval for refinancing agreements meeting certain requirements to extend the agreed debt rescheduling to certain creditors that have either opposed the refinancing agreement (i.e. dissident creditors), or that have not participated in it.

Additional Provision 4 of the Insolvency Act establishes that court approval for refinancing agreements may be sought by the debtor if they meet the following conditions:

New criteria set out by the Bank of Spain will have a binding nature for supervised financial entities

Introduction

On 30 April 2013 the supervisory body of the Bank of Spain sent a formal communication to the financial entities subject to its supervision containing the criteria to be used with regard to the definition, documentation, follow-up and review of credit refinancing and restructuring transactions (the Communication).

La apreciación de mala fe a efectos de subordinación del crédito de la contraparte a la restitución en caso de rescisión exige, además de conocer la situación de insolvencia o proximidad a la insolvencia del deudor, la concurrencia de un aspecto subjetivo (conciencia de que se afecta negativamente –perjuicio- a los demás acreedores) y de un aspecto objetivo (valorativo de la conducta del acreedor, consistente en que esta sea merecedora de la repulsa ética en el tráfico jurídico).

The Supreme Court rescinded a payment made to the creditor that petitioned for compulsory insolvency in a case where the creditor withdrew its petition and the debtor applied for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:

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

Given the situation of Spanish market generally —and the latest reforms on restructuring of the financial sector more particularly— it seems that cash flow shortage may be ongoing in the near to mid term future for some Spanish corporations. Upon this situation stressed or distressed companies may consider rescue financing alternatives in substitution —or in addition to— other traditional funding. Generally within a broadest restructuring deal, non-bank lenders may have an interesting role to play in providing for liquidity facilities.

In line with the trend of the first reform to the Spanish Insolvency Act of 2003 carried out on March 2009 (the 2009 Reform), new amendments to the Spanish Insolvency Act (the SIA) were approved on 4 October 2011 (the Amendment). This Amendment will enter into force on 1 January 2012.

The current economic recession has been particularly acute in one of the pillars of the national economy, the construction and real-estate sector. This sector, which had already been undergoing a slowdown in recent years following the so-called “real-estate boom”, now stands in a profound and particular crisis with sales coming to a standstill, caused not only by the overall market situation, but mainly due to the restrictions placed by banks on loans, which are putting an economic brake on entrepreneurs.  

The object of this article is to analyze a controversial issue which is considered in recent times by the Mercantile Courts as a current incident involved in the Bankruptcy Proceedings and more specifically, to analyze the Judgement issued by the Court of First Instance no. 9 and Mercantile Court of Cordoba dated April, 19th 2010, in which the aforementioned incident is involved.  

This incident is essentially based on establishing the treatment that should be granted to the additional guarantees provided by third parties in bankruptcy proceedings.