Go back to News
NEWS
Íñigo Erláiz new Managing Partner
31 January, 2022
The General Meeting of Partners of Gómez-Acebo & Pombo has approved this Monday, January 31, the appointment of Íñigo Erláiz as new Managing Partner.Íñigo Erláiz replaces Carlos Rueda, who will become Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Firm. The change at the head of the Firm’s management is part of an internal process resulting from the limitation of terms in the position of Managing Partner under the Firm’s bylaws.
The Meeting has also agreed to the renewal of the Board of Directors, which will be formed from now on by: Íñigo Erláiz, Miguel Lamo de Espinosa, Daniel Marín, Álvaro Mateo, Manuel Martín, Verónica Romaní, Mónica Weimann and Carlos Rueda as Chairman.
Íñigo Erláiz thanks the partners of the Firm for their support and trust and mentions his “enthusiasm to take on this project and contribute as much as possible, with the support of all the partners, to continue promoting the Firm as an Iberian firm of reference and thus continue with the upward trend of recent years”.
Experience
Íñigo Erláiz joined Gómez-Acebo & Pombo in 1999, where he has developed his entire professional career and where he has been a partner since 2010. He has headed the Corporate area since 2016, a period in which said practice has experienced remarkable growth, and is a specialist in M&A having regularly advised on mergers and acquisitions and private equity transactions. Íñigo Erláiz has been a member of the Firm’s Board of Directors for the last eight years.
He holds a degree in Law and a diploma in Corporate Legal Consultancy, with honors, from the Universidad Pontificia de Comillas (ICADE). He has a Master’s Degree in Human Resources Management from the UNED. He holds a diploma in Bankruptcy Law from the Madrid Bar Association.
Expansión
El Confidencial
El Economista
Cinco Días
Iberian Lawyer
Press contact
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
Compensation for ‘loss of chance’ to reorganise the company had the banks fulfilled their financing commitments (Supreme Court (First Chamber) Judgment no. 1944/2025 of 23 December)
The Supreme Court applies compensation for loss of chance a second time outside the scope of healthcare liability and goes so far as to compensate cases that would have otherwise remained uncompensated.
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
2 days ago
European reform of the sustainability reporting regime under Directive (EU) 2026/470: consequences of its non-transposition into domestic law
Directive (EU) 2026/470 (Omnibus I) has been published, limiting the obligation to prepare a sustainability report to public-interest entities with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover of more than €450 million during the preceding financial year, as well as to parent companies of a large group that exceed these figures on a consolidated basis. The Directive amends the audit directive, the accounting directive, the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD).
2 days ago
PUBLICATION
3 days ago
Uncertificated share pledge creation, enforceability and avoidance (Supreme Court Judgment no.183/2026 of 10 February)
In Judgment no. 183/2026, of 10 February, the Supreme Court analysed the requirements for the validity and enforceability of an uncertificated registered share pledge and examined the conditions for its avoidance in the context of insolvency proceedings.
3 days ago
PUBLICATION
06 Mar, 2026
The long arm of the Unified Patent Court based on the "event giving rise to the infringement" and considerations on the application of lex loci protectionis
This paper analyses the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025, where the Unified Patent Court (UPC) justifies its jurisdiction on the basis of shipment of products from a UPC territory by company listed as authorized representative in the EC and UK markets as event giving rise to damage. Furthermore, although the applicable law with regard to the infringement of the European patent validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is the national law of those States, with regard to the scope of patent protection, the UPC imposes on the defendant—unduly—the burden of proving the specifics of national law.
06 Mar, 2026
PUBLICATION
03 Mar, 2026
Legal doctrine of the UPC’s Court of Appeal on the patent invalidity defence: is the way in which the ‘long arm’ is applied compatible with the UPC's own Rules of Procedure?
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has ruled that a patent invalidity defence cannot be raised before the Unified Patent Court, with only a counterclaim being possible. This calls into question the way in which the ‘long arm’ is being applied with regard to European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), whether or not they are members of the European Union, since no counterclaim for revocation or plea of invalidity as a defence can be filed or raised with regard to such patents. This raises significant doubts about the compatibility of how the ‘long arm’ is applied in the Unified Patent Court system, given its own Rules of Procedure.
03 Mar, 2026
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
A restructuring plan sanctioned in England and Wales that modifies debt subject to German law has no effect in Germany
Recognition of UK restructuring plans remains a contentious issue in the European Union. This decision by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court is controversial, but it raises questions about the consequences of the application of the rule in Gibbs by the courts of England and Wales in this context.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
Pharma & Healthcare No. 47
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
23 Feb, 2026
Irregularities in public sector staffing. Jurisdiction and/or substantive law
When a serious irregularity is found in administrative contracts owing to their employment character, jurisdiction lies with the employment branch of the court system. However, if the administrative route is not outside the scope of the law, jurisdiction lies with the judicial review branch of the court system.
23 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
17 Feb, 2026
Squeeze-out of minority shareholders following successful mandatory takeover bid: rebuttable presumption of fair consideration
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber), in its judgment of 27 November 2025 (Case C-567/24, Svema Trade), concerning the equitable price in a squeeze-out requiring minority shareholders to sell their shares to an offeror who, following a mandatory takeover bid, has acquired more than 90% of the capital carrying voting rights in the company subject of the takeover bid, states that the presumption that the price offered in the bid, in the context of such a squeeze-out of holders of securities, is equitable is rebuttable.
17 Feb, 2026