The Supreme Court of Spain has recognized it its Judgment dated September 5th, 2012, the lack of consent in a work contract on which one of the parties applied for the bankruptcy proceedings 10 days after such contract was entered by both parties.

The parties entered into a contract for execution of work by virtue of which the company that few days later applied for the insolvency proceedings, was committed to carry out the works of a building under construction.

Once the bankruptcy proceeding was started, each party issued a claim within the insolvency proceeding.

The Company Court of Alicante, Nº 1, made, in its judgment dated July 20th, 2012, a useful analysis on the different decisions part of the case law in regards to the recognition of pledgesof future receivables and their classification as privileged credit in cases of bankruptcy proceedings, being a very commonly practiced consideration.

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.  

Following the latest reform of the Bankruptcy Act, the Spanish Tax Authorities have established a mechanism to ensure the collection of the applicable VAT in the acquisition of property from companies declared bankrupt.

Until 1 January 2012, Article 84 of the VAT Act 37/1992, when regulating the reversal cases of the taxpayer liable for this tax, no reference is made to companies declared bankrupt and the cases of their goods being acquired. However, this situation has changed since 1 January 2012.

The question of which law is applicable to the insolvency of a party in an international commercial arbitration is a topical issue, particularly in the current financial crisis.Whether it be a desire to initiate arbitration; an arbitration that is already underway or where an award is to be enforced, the situation may arise where one party is, or will be, declared insolvent.

The matter subject to this analysis is decision taken by a Bankruptcy Administration dealing with three companies of the same company group which are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Given the situation and in response of the confusing information of assets, the Administration under discussion decided to gather the three companies joining all their creditors in a sole debt pooling and besides, joining all the rights and assets of the three companies.  

On March 21st, 2012 the Spanish High Court rendered its Judgment in which stated that credits for supplies accrued before a company has been stated in bankruptcy, have to be paid as preferential credits, this means that they shall have priority over the rest of the credits, in those cases in which the Court who is dealing with the bankruptcy proceedings had ordered the supplier to continue with the respective supply in the interest of the bankrupt company.

The insolvency administrators (hereinafter, “the Plaintiff”) of the company Santa Teresa Materiales de Construcción S.L. (hereinafter “the Company”) sought the declaration of invalidity of the transaction undertaken by the Banco Santander S.A. (hereinafter, “the Bank”) classified by the Plaintiff as debt offset.

In this appeal, the court analyzes the extent of the consequential damages and future loss of profits that correspond to the lessor of a business premise on the occasion of the unilateral termination by the lessee, caused by the failure to obtain the mandatory licenses for the supermarket business of such premise.