Go back to News
NEWS
Rafael Aguilera is the new coordinator of Gómez-Acebo & Pombo’s Banking and Finance department
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo appoints Rafael Aguilera as new Banking and Finance coordinating partner.
Rafael Aguilera replaces Miguel Lamo de Espinosa, who has held the position for the last eight years and who is stepping down to focus on coordinating the Restructuring and Special Situations Team (an area of great importance at the moment) and on promoting the international business of the department and the Firm. In the last eight years, Gómez-Acebo & Pombo has positioned itself as one of the leading law firms in financing transactions, having doubled its turnover in this sector during that period of time.
Rafael Aguilera, who has an extensive and recognised track record in banking, is an expert in credit and corporate finance transactions, including corporate finance, acquisition finance, LBOs, asset finance (mainly real estate and project finance), special and hybrid transactions (debt/equity), refinancing processes and debt restructuring. He advises on a recurring basis the main Spanish financial institutions and credit funds on financing operations in Spain, having participated in several of the most complex transactions in recent years. With this appointment, GA_P aims to consolidate its position as a leading firm in advising banks and financial institutions.
In the words of Lamo de Espinosa: “This appointment aims to provide the area with a renewed impetus that will allow us to maintain the growth path we have achieved as a team and which Rafa will surely intensify. It also allows us to optimise our human resources, placing the leading experts in the field at the head of each team. With Rafa’s appointment we also want to reaffirm our commitment to Spanish financial institutions, with whom we have worked significantly in recent years and who are a strategic client for the Firm”.
Rafael Aguilera replaces Miguel Lamo de Espinosa, who has held the position for the last eight years and who is stepping down to focus on coordinating the Restructuring and Special Situations Team (an area of great importance at the moment) and on promoting the international business of the department and the Firm. In the last eight years, Gómez-Acebo & Pombo has positioned itself as one of the leading law firms in financing transactions, having doubled its turnover in this sector during that period of time.
Rafael Aguilera, who has an extensive and recognised track record in banking, is an expert in credit and corporate finance transactions, including corporate finance, acquisition finance, LBOs, asset finance (mainly real estate and project finance), special and hybrid transactions (debt/equity), refinancing processes and debt restructuring. He advises on a recurring basis the main Spanish financial institutions and credit funds on financing operations in Spain, having participated in several of the most complex transactions in recent years. With this appointment, GA_P aims to consolidate its position as a leading firm in advising banks and financial institutions.
In the words of Lamo de Espinosa: “This appointment aims to provide the area with a renewed impetus that will allow us to maintain the growth path we have achieved as a team and which Rafa will surely intensify. It also allows us to optimise our human resources, placing the leading experts in the field at the head of each team. With Rafa’s appointment we also want to reaffirm our commitment to Spanish financial institutions, with whom we have worked significantly in recent years and who are a strategic client for the Firm”.
Press contact
Sandra Cuesta
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Sandra Cuesta
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
Competition Blog
¡NEW!
Overview of Civil Litigation in Portugal – GAR Know-How Guide
Administrative modernisation, major infraestructure projects, defence and energy transition in the new cycle of Portuguese public law.
PUBLICATION
2 days ago
Partial limitation defences that may be raised in relation to the limitation period within a cartel (Supreme Court Judgment no. 681/2026 of 6 May)
A flawed judgment on a problem that has remained unresolved to date in the truck cartel. The issue is not whether the liability-in-solidum regime applies, but whether co-liable parties can raise personal defences.
PUBLICATION
2 days ago
The “serious risk” of financial assistance (Supreme Court (First Chamber) Judgment of 5 May 2026)
This paper critically analyses the Supreme Court ruling of 5May 2026, which applies the prohibition on financial assistance to a case involving the sale of treasury shares with deferred payment to the shareholders of the assisting company.
PUBLICATION
One week ago
The Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies the impact on VAT of intra-group transfer pricing adjustments
The Court of Justice, in the Stellantis Portugal case, confirms that a transfer pricing adjustment intended to ensure a specific profit margin, even if certain repair or warranty costs are partially taken into account in its calculation, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is an independent supply of services subject to value-added tax. The determining factors are the existence of a legal relationship involving reciprocal consideration and a direct link between the identifiable service and the consideration received.
PUBLICATION
One week ago
Unanimous shareholders' agreements and dividends in specie
The Supreme Court and the Madrid Provincial Court, following established legal doctrine, have reiterated that a party to a unanimous shareholders’ agreement acts in bad faith if he or she challenges a company resolution passed in compliance with said shareholders’ agreement. In this case, the shareholders’ agreement provided for the possibility of paying dividends in kind, and the contested resolution — which was passed by a majority at the shareholders’ meeting — transferred certain real estate properties to one of the shareholders (with his consent) in payment of the dividend due to him.
PUBLICATION
01 Jun, 2026
NGT plant patenting: betwixt and between regulatory continuity and expectations
The evolution of the concept of genetically modified organisms in the European Union in light of new genomic techniques (NGTs) is examined, along with the regulatory response that introduces a distinction between two categories of NGT plants, making the regime more flexible for those that can be considered equivalent to conventional plants. It also highlights that the institutional agreement reflected in the Council’s position represents a significant shift from the case law of the Court of Justice. Regarding patents, it highlights the absence of substantial changes, opting instead for a cautious approach based on transparency, monitoring, and possible future intervention.
PUBLICATION
28 May, 2026
Voluntary takeover bids and squeeze-outs
The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber) of 13 May 2026 (Korfin and Sempiola v Slovnaft, Case C-225/25) clarifies the concept of a takeover bid for the purposes of Article 2 of the 2004 Takeover Bids Directive, such that an offer made to the holders of securities of a company with a view to acquiring all or some of those securities does not fall within the concept of a takeover bid where it is made by an offeror who already controls the offeree company. Consequently, based on that court’s interpretation of the Directive’s provisions, there is no right of squeeze-out in such voluntary takeover bids.
PUBLICATION
27 May, 2026
An action for declaration of invalidity of an already-terminated franchise agreement is admissible
An action for declaration of invalidity of an agreement can almost always be brought, even if the agreement has been performed and terminated.
PUBLICATION
26 May, 2026
Severance pay is a claim against the insolvent estate - not an insolvency claim - if a pre-opening-of-insolvency-proceedings dismissal is ruled unfair post hoc
Notwithstanding a dismissal occurring before the opening of insolvency proceedings, if a court finding of unfairness and an employer decision to make a severance payment occur after, the dismissed employee’s claim must be deemed against the insolvent estate, even if the parties had reached a settlement, if such was reached also after.