The Restructuring of Gabba 10

Maccabruni & Partners advised Gabba 10 on an agreement with Banco BPM, laying the foundations for a restructuring of Gabba 10’s economic and financial position and for the completion of an important real estate project in central Milan.

The Maccabruni & Partners team was led by founder Franco F. Maccabruni.

Gabba 10 is a real estate company with a strong presence in the Milanese luxury property market. During this operation, it was also advised by Gatti Pavesi Bianchi Ludovici, Spada & Partners and Ferriani Studio. Carnelutti Law Firm advised Banco BPM.

 

Lawyer Monthly had the pleasure to speak with Franco F. Maccabruni, Founding Partner at Maccabruni & Partners to give us some further insight into this transaction:

Can you tell us more about the restructuring plan and what it entails?

The restructuring plan allows Gabba 10 to dedicate the sums collected for some sales of properties already renovated to the completion of the new high-level housing units, part of which are already promised for sale to prestigious foreign customers. Thanks to this, the properties were completed and sold to the satisfaction of the company and the bank.

What role did your team play in the deal, and what skills did you bring to the table?

In addition to the reorganisation agreement, Maccabruni & Partners is also taking care of all the legal aspects of the real estate transaction, from its structuring to consultancy in relations to contractors, up to assistance in the sales of residential and commercial properties.

In the restructuring of corporate debts I bring experience gained in carrying out M&A operations, corporate reorganisation, financing by international pools of banks, issuance of securities, IPOs . In Gabba 10 deal, my team and I advise Gabba 10 not only in negotiation of the extrajudicial agreements with their creditors, but also in their daily management.

Were any significant challenges encountered? If so, how did you overcome them?

The most important challenge was to convince the bank to delay the collection of the money already on the company’s accounts and instead to allocate it to the completion of the construction site. The obstacle was overcome, demonstrating to the bank that this approach would have generated higher revenues because ironclad contracts had already been negotiated with the potential buyers of the properties, conditional only on the completion of the works. Because of this, a waterfall of payments for each real estate sale was provided in the agreement, which firstly provides for the payment of the contractors’ fees and, subsequently, part of the bank credit and a markup for the company.

Leave A Reply