The Chinese technology group Shiji, which has more than 3,000 employees and is a world leader in the hotel technology sector, has acquired an 80 percent share of ReviewPro for a total of 26.5 million euros. ReviewPro is a company based in Barcelona, which began as a start-up in 2008 and is, today, the world leader in applications of Guest Intelligence, currently serving more than 30,000 customers worldwide. This move consolidates Shiji’s strategy to become the world’s leading manufacturer in information systems for the hotel sector through operating “big data” applications and extending into the catering and small-business sectors.
Last 24 September 2016 Abengoa notified the signing of the Agreement for the Restructuring of its Financial Debt as a relevant fact, thus initiating the term for the adhesion of its creditors to the agreement. Once the adhesion period has ended and after reaching the financial liability majorities of 75%, the judge will approve the Settlement Agreement and its terms will be extended to those financial creditors who have not signed the agreement or expressed their disagreement with it.
Simultaneously to the approval request, other processes will commence in the UK and the USA with the objective of extending the settlement agreement to the financial creditors.
The agreement contemplates a capitalisation of 70% of the amount of the loans and the refinancing of the remaining 30% through new debt instruments that will replace the existing ones.
The recent ruling of 13 April 2016 issued by Supreme Court nº 244/2016 dismissed an appeal for reversal in which the appealing party upheld that the need for the signatures of all the guarantors –three guarantors, one of whom had not signed- could not be regarded as an essential requisite for the existence of a guarantee contract with respect to the two signing guarantors and defendants. The High Court declared “According to the Spanish Civil Code the joint and several guarantee system is founded on the clear consortium-based relationship of the guarantors” projected in the manner of constituting the guarantee, “which implies the need for all the guarantors to sign in order for it to be considered valid”, as otherwise “the special link of severalty does not exist, and consequently, cannot be claimed”.
This ruling, along with Ruling no. 808/1996 of 14 October 1996, facilitates a potential basis for case law in relation to this matter.
Last 6 April 2016, Commercial Court number 2 of Seville issued a decision validating the refinancing agreement signed between Abengoa and its financial creditors. The decision establishes that the refinancing agreement, which received the backing of creditors representing more than 75% of the Group’s financial liabilities “is limited to extending the maturity of the debtors’ obligations for seven months (..) in order to prevent their financial deterioration and allocate the income generated by its activity to paying off non-financial credits (in particular, workers) and also reach an agreement to improve the financial conditions of the debtors”. Such improvements include the capitalisation of 70% of the existing debt, deferring the remainder of the debt and the contribution of between 1,500 and 1,800 million euros in additional finance and between 500 and 800 million euros in new guarantee lines.
During the final stage of the Panama Canal Expansion Project, the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) has once again ruled that GUPC (the consortium awarded the project, which includes the entity Sacyr) is entitled to receive payment of the extra costs incurred in executing the works.
In a decision issued in December 2015, the DAB admitted that GUCP had the right to receive 17.5 million dollars from the ACP for additional costs and delays during the works caused by the strike and the incidents that took place in Panama in May 2014.
In January 2016, in a different decision, the DAB admitted another claim filed by GUPC amounting to 24.60 million dollars corresponding to additional labour costs.
The above amounts are in addition to the 233.4 million dollars the ACP was obliged to pay to GUPC following a prior decision in January 2015 in connection with the poor quality of the basalt that was to be used to build the new Canal road.