The situation centers on the Rubiralta family, the owners, and the creditor funds tied to Celsa Ironworks, highlighting tensions that could unfold in a worst‑case scenario. After the company’s lenders asked for a reassessment last Friday and urged governments in Catalonia, Cantabria, Euskadi, and Galicia to lend support, unions UGT and CCOO, along with Catalan employer group Foment del Treball, joined calls for action. Banking partners Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, and a Senior Vice President with Cross Ocean are cited as key players in the dispute. A central claim persisted: the Rubiralta portfolio, they argue, stands in the way of a ransom and could be valued at 550 million, with creditors needing to approve a plan by June 30.
The company has quickly rebutted this narrative, reminding observers that creditor funds previously bought the bank. They report extensive discounts on debt: up to 80% on corporate liabilities and as much as 20% on senior debt for convertible instruments. They assert that the funds did not finance the venture nor support its strategic path. In response, the funds insist they remain committed to Celsa’s viability and to the industrial project, stressing their reluctance to industrially relocate decision making or move operations abroad.
From Celsa’s perspective, the proposed funding would amount to extracting and expropriating company value, yielding an 80% annual return while relying on public support and shifting costs onto workers, suppliers, customers, and local communities. The plan reportedly involves a new financial instrument that would create a Luxembourg‑based holding company, followed by a second company owned by the funds and a Luxembourg tax and commercial shell. The arrangement is described as a strategic move that anchors the enterprise’s assets in a jurisdiction favorable to the financiers.
The funds, which reportedly own the majority of Celsa’s large convertible debt, acknowledge the company’s role as an employer and regional economic driver and express a desire for the operation to continue. They say they are actively pursuing a fair deal that would reduce the company’s debt burden. The contested point remains how much the Rubiralta family would benefit from any agreement at the expense of the creditors. In the initial plan, after lenders contributed about €1.2 billion in debt to seed and accelerate growth, the Rubiralta family would maintain full control and capture all value exceeding the restructured debt.
Creditors indicate they would accept the Rubiralta family’s request to retain control if that step helps reach a settlement with SEPI. The essential distinction between the positions of the company and its creditors, they say, lies in how any available value would be allocated when SEPI funding is in play and the restructured debt is repaid. Importantly, this allocation would not affect SEPI funding or the company’s ongoing operations.
Both sides have revised their terms, moving away from their initial conditions. Yet creditors continue to view the proposed distribution of the company’s value as unfair and disproportionate, arguing that it imposes a burden of more than €1,000 million on the creditors while the Rubiralta family contributed only a fraction of that amount. They caution that this would treat creditors unfavorably and fail to reflect proportional risk and contribution by all stakeholders. The broader concern remains whether the plan adequately protects the company’s long‑term viability and its commitments to workers, suppliers, and regional economies. The discussion highlights a clash between preservation of enterprise value and the need for equitable sharing of the risks and rewards generated by Celsa’s industrial footprint. At stake is not merely debt relief but the company’s future strategic orientation and its role in the sector’s energy transition. (Attribution: industry coverage and financial disclosures)