In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.
The court rejected the entity’s claim, considering there were no objective circumstances to conclude that (i) the agreement was aimed at harming the enforcement; (ii) other enforcements received special treatment; or (iii) as a result of the standstill, the claimant’s credit could be affected compared to other creditors with more solid guarantees. The standstill of the enforcement is a consequence of the agreement’s modifiable obligational effect and of the rights to defense and claim, identical to that endured by other creditors with individual enforcement processes underway. The dissenting entity’s credit is in the same category as other credits with enforcement underway and that are affected by a grace period remunerated with an increasing ordinary interest rate and the capitalization of unpaid interest arising from the previous refinancing. The standstill also ensures equal treatment of financial creditors given that it avoids disintegration of the insolvency estate and the hasty and uneconomic liquidation of the insolvent party’s assets.