Owned by the steel group Celsa, a decision that still stirs headlines, the market remains largely unchanged by the current statistics. The bankruptcy reform debate in Spain has sparked mixed feelings. Is the reform helping or hindering? Is it really useful? To answer, five sector experts were consulted. A partner lawyer from a leading insolvency firm summarized the consensus: the law is good and it signals a necessary shift in thinking. It points toward a paradigm change that must be embraced for real progress, with a focus on cultural transformation that could reduce the fear surrounding insolvency filings.
Other voices joined this view. Among them were a respected commercial court magistrate in Barcelona, a prominent business council president, and the head of a major business association. Their shared stance is that the European Union, and Spain in particular, designed a new framework to help viable companies survive a bankruptcy claim. The reform is seen as a step in the right direction with honest intentions, yet it has not yet prevented the majority of insolvencies from ending in liquidation.
One critic summarized the law’s practical shortcomings. There is a sense of urgency in some sectors, but much of the problem lies outside the law, not inside it. A cultural shift is necessary, underscored by two central issues: first, the default instinct in some places is to protect personal assets; second, bids were sometimes late or poorly prepared, leaving companies with little breathing room to adapt.
Questions also arose about Brussels-based commitments. Rebuilding Europe’s industrial base appears to empower large domestic firms with tools that can shift value to investors or third parties. The leader of the business council warned that the goal of many such firms is to maximize profits, which can involve moving assets or selling stakes to others.
Passover competitions
In this context, the dynamics between the company, the government, and creditors came into focus. The directive in question addresses how current or imminent bankruptcies should be handled. A veteran judge defended the ruling, noting that a company large enough to be beyond the SME category can still be overwhelmed by creditors. The takeaway: decisions in such cases may need shared oversight rather than resting on one individual alone. Losing a strategic Catalan company is painful, yet the legal path is shaped by the rules that govern it.
Other concerns highlighted by the group of experts include that Celsa’s case is more the exception than the rule, especially when considering micro-enterprises and the broader trend toward more open competition in the market. The legislator aimed to provide guarantees, but the execution was not flawless. Previously, judges had limited routes for governance when assets were insufficient to cover debts. Now, there are four scenarios that direct the judiciary toward proactive insolvency processes, sometimes favoring pre-emptive agreements. And indeed, cases where this route is chosen have already surfaced.