In the current economic situation, which we can define as one of transit - after hell we return to purgatory -, managing to restructure and refinance debt is essential in order to obtain a new business opportunity that allows for the creation of employment and growth. The complexity of the agents, credit institutions or assimilated funds, to various effects, means that it is difficult to avoid the constitution or novation of guarantees in the event that there are assets susceptible to economic valuation for this purpose. The recently approved RDL 4/2014 points in a good direction by solving practical problems.

The complexity of the agents, credit institutions or assimilated funds, to various effects, makes it difficult to avoid the creation or novation of guarantees in the event that there are assets susceptible to economic valuation for this purpose. The recently approved RDL 4/2014, once again in the parliamentary amendment process, points in a good direction by resolving practical problems and opening up avenues for future solutions. Among others, the possibility of capitalisation by debt and thus the prior issuance of bonds, as well as the facilitation of majorities capable of reaching agreements. However, once again, it leaves the strange regulation of the pledge of future credits up in the air, as it does not modify article 90.1.6 of the Insolvency Act (LC), which establishes, in the wording given to it by Law 38/2011, the necessary publicity to be protected against insolvency proceedings.

The regime of credit pledges in Spain is chaotic -except for the liquid pledges of RDL 5/2005, which have been subjectively extended several times, the last one in favour of Sareb-. To such an extent that one can speak of three types of pledges, depending on the time of their creation or the fact that they are secured by future credits. For this reason, the fact that article 90.1.6 of the LC has not been amended, despite the now peaceful case law, which clearly limits any requirement, including notification to the debtor, except for its enforceability, the certainty of the date - which leads to the execution of a public deed or much more frequently to the intervention of a commercial policy - and the general requirements of any legal business, can only make sense if the aim is to avoid opening wounds in the disputes to which the State is a party due to large-scale financing of public concessionary works.

In any case, and subject to what may happen in the new reform in the making, which is being processed as a matter of urgency, the Spanish regulatory framework for pledges is difficult for investors to understand. The icing on the cake is the registration publicity required for pledges on future credits - pledges of future credits - which seems to be understood - because even here there is doubt - to mean those which at the time of their constitution do not have as their object credits that are already due, liquid and payable - which must be understood in the strict sense, taking into account their aggravated regime. In other words, it will not be a future credit if its contractual scope is determined by a prior, clear and identified legal relationship, which is possible to assess in most refinancing transactions. Although this argumentation makes it possible to obviate the need for registration publicity, an uncertain interpretation of what may occur in the execution of the pledge leads to the fact that registration in the Register should be advised, which, although the law does not say so - it refers to the Public Register, without more - refers to the Register of Movable Goods (RBM), especially after Law 41/2007 and except in the case of some cases of intellectual property, in addition to some cases of intellectual property, additionally, some cases of intellectual property, given that Spain has not yet ratified the aeronautical protocol to the 2001 Cape Town Convention on security rights, so that the entry in the international Register that it provides for is not in force in Spain - incidentally, last week the EU Council approved the decision on the ratification of the Luxembourg Rail Protocol to the Convention.

The current configuration of the BRRM constitutes a substantial practical problem in the development of pledge collateral. And not because of the concept, but because there is no sufficient legal framework. Its organisation and management does not allow it to be adapted to the new collateral. An obvious example is the pledge to guarantee the refinancing of solar plants, in which the specific units are subject, independently of the initial pledge of the whole, to a possible future individualised sub-pledge, possibly entered in a different registry from the first, which is determined by the debtor's domicile. A second issue, which I have already analysed in more detail elsewhere, is the splitting up of the material civil regime of the right in rem of pledge in that the Catalan Civil Code does not admit the sub-pledge as does Law 41/2007, which generates important problems in determining the applicable law, especially if one takes into account the already mentioned delocalising system of the RBM.

Finally, the application by the DGRN of mortgage principles from the mechanics of the Land Registry, such as the principle of speciality, is not trivial. The Resolution of 2 January 2013 requires that the debt or part of the debt corresponding to the amount secured by the pledge - in this case, on Iberian hams and shoulders identified by their respective tags - must be determined. The Resolution textually states -with obvious detachment from the legal and economic reality that leads to the constitution of these pledges- that "the principle of determining the registrable rights must be accepted as regards the data relating to the guaranteed obligation, with a certain flexibility in order to facilitate credit, although not to the point of admitting the constitution of a mortgage to guarantee an undifferentiated mass of already existing obligations, nor to guarantee with a mortgage totally future obligations". In other words, it generates absolute uncertainty for the operator, who ignores the specific flexibility, which is always a matter of valuation, of the concrete case and as to what are totally future obligations, as these must be described in the title. Leaving aside the incomprehensible reason why the principle of speciality based on the concept of estate and not on the concept of encumbrance must be extended to the RBM, will the security over a whole - for example, future rents of a non-horizontally divided building as security for various obligations - present a single cause based on a refinancing agreement? Or is the obligation arising from an intellectual property right for a patent not yet formally registered to be considered as a wholly future obligation? The pledge of future claims requires a legal regime that allows many companies to escape the abyss and foreign investors to gain confidence in our system.

Leaving aside the incomprehensible reason why the principle of speciality based on the concept of estate and not on the concept of encumbrance needs to be extended to the RBM, will the security over a whole - e.g. future rentals of a non-horizontally divided building as security for several obligations - present a single cause of action based on a refinancing agreement? Or is the obligation arising from an intellectual property right for an unregistered patent to be considered as a wholly future obligation? The pledge on future receivables requires a regime that allows companies to step back from the abyss.