During 2025 we saw a worrying pattern: companies with viable businesses which end up filing for insolvency when there is nothing left to save. Not for lack of tools, but due to delay. In practice, asset-less insolvencies (formerly referred to as “express insolvencies”) have become the end point of many SME´s: no liquidity, no assets, strained creditors and exposed directors.

In 2026, this risk has not gone away. Although the market expects some degree of financial normalisation, the underlying problem remains: liquidity costs have raised, and tolerance for deterioration has decreased. In this context, restructuring plans are, for many companies, the difference between preserving value and destroying it.

The wrong approach: negotiating when default has already occurred

Many companies only start engaging with banks, suppliers or lenders once a default has already occurred. From that point on, the negotiation changes: it is no longer about finding a solution, but becomes a control-driven scenario. Creditors prioritise protecting themselves, demand guarantees, reduce their exposure, and gain greater decision-making power.

A restructuring plan works in precisely the opposite way: it is used before collapse, when there is still a viable business and a real capacity to sustain it.

2026–2027: a projected uptick and a change in the regulatory context

According to the General Council of Economists (CGE) and REFOR, insolvency proceedings are expected to increase by 2% in 2026 and by 4% in 2027, as reported by Agencia EFE and covered by Law & Trends.

The key takeaway is not the percentage, but the driver behind that uptick: the end of moratoria (including those linked to the territories affected by catastrophic floods in October 2024) and the unwinding of extraordinary measures stemming from the pandemic, particularly with regard to the treatment of losses in 2020 and 2021.

This has a very clear implication: there will be fewer “buffers” and less tolerance for delay. The system is pushing companies to act earlier, and those who are not prepared will find themselves trapped in irreversible insolvency. That is why, in 2026, the real question is not whether to restructure, but whether action is taken in time, and how well it is executed.

What makes a restructuring plan different

A plan is not a document: it is a structured exit framework with three key advantages:

• Time: temporary protection against enforcement actions, allowing negotiations to take place rationally rather than under immediate threat.

• Ability to reorganise liabilities: the capacity to modify the debt structure, maturities, covenants, guarantees and, where appropriate, the financial perimeter.

• Discipline: it forces the narrative (“we will turn things around”) to be translated into a verifiable framework: viability, operational measures, projections, milestones and monitoring.

If designed early and carefully, it reduces the likelihood of insolvency. If designed too late or treated as a formality, it accelerates deterioration.

Early signs requiring action

In management committees, symptoms that should trigger decisions, rather than just monitoring, are often normalised:

• Tax deferrals or recurring tensions with Social Security authorities.

• Increasing reliance on confirming/factoring to meet day-to-day obligations.

• Supplier turnover driven by reputational deterioration or payment delays. Ongoing “one-off” adjustments to sustain EBITDA.

• Reactive decision-making: cutting critical investment just to get through the month.

When these signs appear, we´re no longer in a prevention scenario: we´re in a deterioration phase, where anticipation determines the outcome.

The real difference: planning and SME-specific expertise

Spain has historically shown low success rates in insolvency proceedings, but proper planning and a deep understanding of SMEs can change the outcome. Our track record demonstrates success rates close to 95%, not through “legal magic,” but through method: understanding the company, anticipating issues, structuring the process, and balancing solutions without unnecessarily harming creditors.

Conclusion: acting early is strategy and corporate governance

Acting early is not just a business decision; it is also personal protection and sound corporate governance. The companies that survive will not necessarily be the largest, but those that measure, decide and negotiate earlier. Restructuring plans are not a silver bullet: they are a window. And like any window, they close.

At Confianz, our experience is clear: when action is taken in time, restructuring preserves value; when it is taken too late, insolvency destroys it.