
Asset deal vs. share deal in small market M&A transactions: key considerations for structuring wisely
In the field of small market M&A transactions, the choice between structuring a transaction as a transfer of assets or as a sale of shares
In the Ruling STS 4540/2023 of 31 October, the Supreme Court, sets precedent in considering that neither the four-year period from the date on which the action could have been brought, provided for in Article 241 bis of the Companies Act (LSC), nor the same period of liability for debts, but counted from the termination of the director’s duties, regulated in Article 949 of the Code of Commerce, is applicable. Instead, the Court considers that article 367 of the LSC states that the directors are joint and several guarantors of the company’s debts, therefore the limitation period for the debts of the directors must coincide with that provided for the company’s debt. In this line, the Court applied in this case the limitation period for personal actions of article 1964 of the Civil Code.
The criterion set out above is decisive for the purposes of directors’ liability, in relation to the starting date of the limitation period, that must coincide with that corresponding to the action against the debtor company, regardless of the date on which the director ceases to hold office within the company.

In the field of small market M&A transactions, the choice between structuring a transaction as a transfer of assets or as a sale of shares

Executive Summary The High Court of Justice of Madrid, in its ruling 681/2025 of 17 September (rec. no. 1991/2021), confirms that a tax residence certificate

Executive Summary In its ruling on the unification of criteria on 17 July 2025 (Ruling 03697/2025), the Central Economic-Administrative Court (TEAC) established that taxpayers covered