In 2011, the Spanish legislator introduced the court-sanctioned refinancing agreement (‘Spanish Scheme’) in the Spanish insolvency system. While the introduction of the Spanish Scheme has been praised for providing new tools for debtors to reorganise out-of-court while addressing the collective action problem, certain of its provisions have made this instrument too rigid and, thus, ineffective for tackling Spanish restructurings.
Act 14/2013, of September 27, 2013, favoring entrepreneurs and their internationalization (the “Act”), introduces a wide range of reforms on insolvency, corporate, tax and labor matters. Regarding insolvencies, it takes a more flexible approach to the quorum of financial creditors required for court-sanctioned refinancing agreements and it regulates out-of-court agree-ments for payment as mechanisms for out-of-court negotiation with creditors.
REFINANCING AGREEMENTS
SUPREME COURT RULING NO. 44/2103, OF FEBRUARY 19, 2013: INSOLVENCY CLASSIFICATION OF FINANCE LEASE INSTALMENTS DEPENDS ON SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT
Supreme Court finds that where a finance lease agreement releases the lessor from liability for defects, credits resulting from payments due before the declaration of insolvency and for those falling due after it are insolvency credits
Under Additional Provision Four of the Insolvency Act,1 which regulates the courts’ sanction of refinancing agreements, the effects of the moratorium established in the agreement will be extended to dissenting financial entities, provided that the conditions specified in that precept are fulfilled (where the requisites imposed under article 71.6 of the Insolvency Act regarding the agreement itself are met and where it has been signed by creditors representing at least 75% of the financial entities’ liabilities at the time of the agreement).
First decisions on the court-sanction of refinancing agreements and extension of effects to dissenting entities under the new text of the Fourth Additional Provision, and analysis of the concept of disproportionate sacrifice when there is opposition to the agreement
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.
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.
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
Whoever acquires control of a listed company due to a conversion of debts into shares directly attributable to a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement will not have to launch a mandatory bid. This exemption applies automatically without the need for a CNMV evaluation.
INTRODUCTION
Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, of March 7, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt, substantially amends the Insolvency Act (particularly regarding the regulation of refinancing agreements and their court sanctioning, and other pre-insolvency institutions). It also modifies the exemption on mandatory takeover bids for rescue operations and extends for one more year (and broadens the scope of) the special regime for calculating loss based on impairment in cases of mandatory capital reduction and mandatory dissolution of companies.