News

ABENGOA REACHES MAJORITY NECESSARY TO MOVE THE PROVISION OF NEW MONEY FORWARD


Abengoa S.A. communicated yesterday, on the 28th of February 2017, as a relevant fact that it has obtained the majority scheduled in the Restructuring Agreement to adapt the disbursement mechanism of the financing of new money (the “Disbursement Proposal”) as planned in the Term Sheet and in the Restructuring Plan, so that a portion thereof may be disbursed in advance.

The approval of the disbursement proposal will allow the company to begin the process of finalisation and execution of the Restructuring Agreement, for the disbursement of the new money and for achieving the Feasibility Plan.

NEW AGREEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT ON CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION FOR CASSATION APPEALS AND EXTRAORDINARY APPEALS FOR PROCEDURAL INFRIGEMENT


On 27 January 2017, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court issued an Agreement regarding new criteria for admission of appeals for cassation and extraordinary appeals for procedural infringement, which will come to replace those adopted under the Agreement of 30 December 2011 and are justified in the experience of the Chamber itself, after five years of application of the previous ones.

The criteria are clearer and more exhaustive and practical in nature than those of 30 December 2011 and will be a great help to lawyers who have to file such appeals, since they clarify a number of doubts that the practical application of the foregoing criteria had been causing.

Among the new aspects of the Agreement, its structure stands out, as it is more coherent and practical than the previous one, and is divided into four major sections: reasons for appeal, decisions subject to appeal, resource requirements (regarding structure, the heading for each reason and development of the same), and causes of inadmissibility.

With this new Agreement, above all, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court intends that appeals for cassation and extraordinary appeals for procedural infringement be less common, clearer, more technical and more formal, to the extent that, following similar criteria already established for appeals for the contentious-administrative cassation appeal, it recommends its maximum extension, line spacing, size and typeface.

The Chinese Technology Group Shiji Acquires ReviewPro


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.

 

 

 

.

SIGNING OF THE ABENGOA REFINANCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


 

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.

 

CASE LAW REGARDING JOINT AND SEVERAL GUARANTEES.


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.