As a consequence of the economic crisis caused by the pandemic covida large number of companies subscribed loans guaranteed by the ICO to avoid solvency problems, at least until the end of it.
These loans were offered in most cases making believe that it was the ICO who guaranteed its return in case of non-payment up to 80%and that therefore the company would have to pay only the remaining 20% of the unpaid amount.
Under this conviction, the administrators and partners of the companies They also signed as guarantors of the loanswithout knowing -because in many cases they were not informed-, that They would respond with all their personal assets.
However, the reality is completely different, since In the event of non-payment of an ICO loan, it is the company and the guarantors who are responsible for 100% of the refund of the amountin addition to the interest and costs of the procedure, as can be seen in the lawsuits that are currently being filed by the banking entities.
Besides, It is the ICO that requires banks to claim the full amount owed by all means, so that later you can pay the bank -and not the company or the guarantors- the unpaid amounts.
This fact has meant that in recent months there have been large number of lawsuits by administrators and partners of companies requesting the annulment of the endorsement signed personally, in addition to the existence of a clear over-guarantee in favor of the bank, which already had the endorsement of the ICO.
And this, despite the fact that banks are offering personal loans to company administrators and partners in order to cover the debt, to try to make it difficult to claim the nullity of the personal guarantee signed for the granting of the ICO loan. .
