This ruling resolves the financial creditors' challenge to the approval of a refinancing agreement extending the deferral stipulated and the modification of the margins added to the Euribor to them. As grounds for their opposition, they claim that the 75% majority of the financial liabilities necessary to extend the reduction of the applicable margin whereby, in their opinion, such reduction entailed debt relief was not present.
The court understands, however, that the reduction of the applicable margin does not reduce the provision initially stipulated in the agreement, but that such provision remains unchanged following the refinancing. It considers that the dissenting creditors are entitled to collect the interest stipulated in the refinancing agreement because the interpretation of its terms executed w ith the dissenting institutions, which refers to interest that "applies at any given time under the financing agreement," leaves no doubt that it was the intention of the contracting parties to establish the same applicable margin in all agreements ("mirror agreements"). It asserts that the reduction of margins does not have a unilateral basis, as maintained by the dissident institutions, but instead results from the covenant attained by both parties in the refinancing agreement, which affects the dissidents because they accepted it by signing the clause interpreted by the court. Lastly, it clarifies that the debt relief to which Additional Provision 4 LC refers consists of the reduction of the credit right, and that the application of this concept to interest should be on those stipulated in the agreement.