In Seville, the commercial court’s third ruling confirmed the disposition of assets and liabilities linked to Abengoa as it competes with Cox Energy. Alicante-based entities, including Enrique Riquelme, faced appeals that the court dismissed, with resources rejected by Urbas, HSBC A.S. and other funds, and Signature noted in an official briefing. The ruling, cited by the chamber, found the appellants’ arguments unfounded and upheld the mid-April decision that recognized Cox Energy’s liquidity contributions during the bankruptcy settlement of the assets at hand.
Specifically, Cox Energy boosted its revised bid by up to 3 million euros for the generation unit and opened a financing line of up to 15 million euros—of which 2.5 million financed interim needs and 5.5 million supported ongoing operations—while pledging to sustain activity and preserve jobs for the workforce of the unit, which totals 9,505 employees. The overall offer from the Alicante-originating firm reached 564 million euros, and the company also backed a guarantee of around 3,200 million euros in jobs protection over the next three years, as stated after the initial award.
In the appeal, the owner of the Alicante construction company Icisa argued that the proposal was not fully authorized and claimed the process ran out of time, arguing that the bid included a price distribution that contravened the Bankruptcy Enforcement Law and the ban on financial aid. He contended that his own offer represented the best and sole option to ensure the multinational’s viability in Seville, noting that it preserved employment and business continuity because the bid involved a larger, more expansive group.
Resources
Urban, owner of Icisa, asserted that the presented plan was a zero-risk proposal and challenged its permission status, insisting that only a timely and legally compliant offer could be considered. The debate centered on whether the bid could sustain the multinational through a critical phase, safeguarding jobs and the generation unit’s productive capacity.
In parallel, the government signaled a 150 million euro guarantee line to help Cox Energy relaunch Abengoa. Urbas argued from the outset that the acquisition was a lever to achieve faster growth. They described the move as opportunistic, designed to place themselves prominently on the business stage during Abengoa’s restructuring.
The judge dismissed these arguments, finding that Cox Energy had not proposed an improved plan after the deadline and had not violated any laws. It was clarified that, under the regulations, it is not the supplier’s role to distribute the bid price for the proposed production unit.
One of Abengoa’s headquarters is shown in a late image capture. (Photo credit: PS/CARLOS LUJAN)
The allegations regarding potential infringement made by Urbas were read as suggesting that the approved proposal did not bind the Water, Energy, Latam and TI divisions to continue activities for the required period of at least three years. For Seville’s justice system, such an assertion lacked foundation, as the bid clearly stated the undertaking of continuity for the set period, aligning with the standard’s requirements.
Money
The award also faced challenges from HSBC PLC, funds overseen by AIM, and Signature, who argued that several provisions of the Bankruptcy Law had been violated. They contended that a veto related to the transfer of mortgaged assets and rights included in Cox’s offer was improperly restricted. The judge noted that privileged creditors differ in degree, yet emphasized that seeking collateral or consent beyond what the law permits would conflict with its spirit and purpose. The ruling affirmed that the sale’s structure does not waive any warranties and that the mortgage property alone could not secure all primary loans.
The court also clarified that those unaffected by the sale do not have grounds to object when the mortgaged property does not fully cover the primary collateralized loans.
Enrique Riquelme, speaking for Cox Energy, summarized the position with resolve: the stage would be met with humility and determination, traits emblematic of Cox and its Veneto region partners. In short, the allegations were deemed ineffective and could delay the process, contrary to the rule’s aims. The award went to Cox Energy, with the Solvency Fund managed by Sepi, the State’s industrial subsidiaries entity, while Abengoa’s request for aid was rejected. With Abengoa SA moving into liquidation, up to thirty related companies were granted the opportunity to bid on all or portions of the group, inviting others to participate in the process.