The case that will determine Celsa’s future has reached its endgame. The president of Barcelona’s second commercial court has aligned with the traditional punishment view of one week for the opinion and another day for the results. If control over the steelworks and the 10,000 employees or the 6,000 million euros annual turnover remain in Spanish hands, the Rubiralta family’s fate may stay with Spain or move to creditors. The final court decision will come between 1 and 8 September, with a face‑to‑face or crossover ruling expected, since no appeal exists on the penalty and the decision will be final.
On Tuesday morning, the parties bridged the gaps they highlighted last week. Rubiralta’s defense pressed to persuade the judge to dismiss the creditor funds’ complaint and argued that the group’s viability hinged on keeping control of the business. By contrast, the plaintiffs—SVP Global, Deutsche Bank, Sculptor, and Anchorage—contended the viability plan pushed by Rubiralta’s side was unstable and capable of dragging the group toward current and future bankruptcy, including terms that would reject debt relief.
With the punishment framework in place, several scenarios unfold. One possibility is that the judge rules for Rubiralta and dismisses the bankruptcy case. That outcome would not erase the debt the Catalan industrialist family currently owes to various funds, some already matured and others set to mature in the future. The current Celsa management would then need to generate enough cash to cover these obligations, potentially through debt renegotiation—an option the funds have indicated they do not intend to accept—or by boosting revenue through new opportunities or trimming costs.
A second scenario envisions the judge ruling in favor of the funds, making the funds the owners of the company. In that case, the Rubiraltas would be separated from the company, and a new board would be appointed to oversee daily operations. The exact names on that board had not yet been fixed as they testified during the trial.
Yet in this scenario, the company’s future would depend not only on the judge’s decision but also on government action. Celsa is classified as a strategic industry, which means any ownership changes or relocation of the company would require executive approval. The government in office at the time of the verdict would hold that responsibility.
If the government authorizes the transfer, the entire debt would not vanish; creditors would still press for repayment. The new owners would face the challenge of generating new income—a task the defendants argued was complicated by the ongoing lawsuit—or potentially selling parts of the business, all while aiming to protect and preserve the existing industrial model of Celsa.
version conflict
Rubiralta’s side argued there was no basis to demand a debt swap for the shares belonging to the industrial group. They also argued for dismissal of the case through legal channels, framing it as a possible expropriation scenario. Recent reports have questioned the facts by suggesting the funds are pressuring Celsa’s value downward to secure a bargain price. If the debt exceeds the company’s value, Catalan bankruptcy law allows creditors to claim outstanding shares.
According to the funds’ calculations, they initially invested less than 250 million euros in a loan of 1.2 billion euros extended by banks to Rubiralta. Based on repayment of that loan, which has already matured, they seek 4,000 million euros worth of equity. They assert that the funds are not interested in resolving the situation and have little interest in a fair resolution. Their aim, they say, is to seize a temporary moment to nationalize the partners and retain more than their share of ownership. Celsa’s current ownership contends these claims are unfounded.
Creditor funds have argued against any viable path for Celsa’s future viability under Rubiralta leadership, citing concerns about solvency. They highlight a government authorization of 550 million euros for immediate lending, with 400 million used to repay existing loans. Their defense attorney described any approval as contingent on discounts creditors are not willing to accept, characterizing the plan as smoke and a chimera. The question remains whether SEPI is still an active entity in this matter.
In their view, the funds argue for capitalizing the debt while ignoring the possibility that Celsa can generate sufficient surpluses in coming years. They accuse Rubiralta of not presenting results for the first two quarters of 2023, which could indicate instability, and they suggest that the figures from fiscal year 2022 would be an outlier rather than a trend for future years. [citation: case records and statements from involved parties].