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.

The rescission was declared of a mortgage the insolvent company  granted over a  warehouse it owned in guarantee of the  loan a credit institution  had  granted to a company of its group. The Supreme Court declared (i) that the contextual guarantee was  for consideration and (ii) the need for proof of the profit (even indirect) of the guarantor  company without merely belonging to the  group sufficing, and  confirmed that the  rescission only affected the guarantee and not the loan.

In homologated refinancing agreements

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

Assignment of a credit with recourse transfers ownership of the credit to the assignee when the transfer is approved and allows the assignee to request that it is separated from the assignor’s insolvency assets.

In both rulings, the Supreme Court stated the effects of assignment of a credit with recourse on the assignor’s declaration of insolvency.

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.

Act 22/2003, of July 9 ("Spain's Insolvency Act"), has been recently amended to include a new chapter regulating the so-called "insolvency mediators" and the extrajudicial settlement of payments ("ESP") as a form of negotiating the debts of the entrepreneurs.

The reform has been introduced by Act 14/2013, of September 27, on entrepreneurs and their internationalization (hereinafter, the "

Act