# Concurso 36/2012 — liquidation-plan compliance, judge/LAJ and counsel-history governance

**Status:** MANDATORY / NO-REGRESSION SUPPLEMENT  
**Date:** 30 August 2026  
**Scope:** every repository, website, court-record, criminal/prosecutorial, appellate, professional-history and evidence-acquisition analysis concerning implementation of the approved liquidation plan in Concurso 36/2012.

Read this with `CONCURSO36_UNITARY_CRIMINAL_FIRST_GOVERNANCE.md` and `CONCURSO36_CONTROLLING_CONCLUSIONS_29AUG2026.md`. Where older presentation conflicts with this source-controlled correction, this supplement controls unless later primary evidence expressly supersedes it.

## 1. Minimum supportable proposition — plan compliance is a first-order judicial question

The located record does **not** permit the May 2021 liquidation sequence to be described as an ordinary, uncontested implementation of the approved liquidation plan.

At minimum, the controlled primary/corroborated record establishes a serious, repeatedly preserved **plan-compliance controversy**:

- the approved plan was relied upon by LPB counsel as requiring, in the relevant circumstances, a BOE Auction Portal process, twenty natural days for bids, publication mechanics and equal bidder/deposit conditions;
- the 12-May-2021 Providencia instead called an in-person `licitación`/appearance for 18 May on very short notice;
- the 18-May-2021 Auto then approved the CAM proposal definitively after the contemplated licitación did not occur because the then-best competing bidder did not appear;
- LPB contemporaneously alleged that the competing bidder had not been effectively notified, that CAM had not bettered the competing offer or lodged the relevant deposit, and that the plan required a different process;
- those issues were repeatedly carried through reposición, direct/differed appeal, queja, nullity and constitutional-amparo routes.

The repository must therefore test, instrument by instrument, **whether the judge fully implemented the approved liquidation plan according to its governing terms, whether a lawful power and reason existed for each departure, and whether any departure required formal modification or other procedural safeguards**.

Do not turn counsel's allegations into an adjudicated finding merely because they are detailed or repeated. Conversely, do not erase the primary objection lineage by saying simply that the adjudication was "under the plan" without identifying the contested implementation mechanics.

## 2. Three-level formulation — never collapse them

### Level A — DOCUMENTED / MINIMUM

The record proves that LPB formally and repeatedly challenged the conformity of material liquidation acts with the approved plan and sought appellate review. The record also proves that some of those challenges were rejected, inadmitted or otherwise did not produce the correction sought.

### Level B — LEGAL / FORENSIC QUESTION

The evidence requires a source-level comparison of:

`approved plan term -> later judicial/LAJ act -> stated legal basis -> contemporaneous objection -> court response -> appellate route -> implementation -> patrimonial effect`.

A departure may be lawful, erroneous, procedurally irregular or legally contestable without being criminal.

### Level C — CRIMINAL / PROSECUTORIAL INVESTIGATIVE ALLEGATION

Preserve and test the allegation that a sequence of judicial omissions and commissions may have had the **effect** of obscuring, normalising or making harder to review a divergence between the approved plan and its implementation, and that the LAJ may have enabled or failed to correct parts of that sequence through procedural acts or omissions.

The stronger proposition — that any judge or LAJ **intended** to conceal, cover tracks, protect a beneficiary, prevent review or otherwise commit a criminal offence — is **not established by the present corpus merely from adverse decisions, omissions, inadmissions or missing records**. It requires actor-specific proof of knowledge, purpose, arbitrariness/illegality, causal contribution and the applicable statutory elements.

Use wording such as:

> The evidence is relied upon in support of the allegation that identified omissions and commissions may have obscured or impeded review of the divergence alleged between the approved liquidation plan and its implementation. The present corpus establishes the objection and procedural sequence; it does not, without further proof, establish a deliberate judicial or LAJ cover-up or criminal intent.

## 3. Judge audit — plan term before judicial finality

For every challenged liquidation act record:

`^ DATE`  
`^ PLAN TERM / ORDER BEING IMPLEMENTED`  
`^ JUDGE ACT / OMISSION`  
`^ STATED LEGAL BASIS`  
`^ WHETHER FORMAL MODIFICATION WAS USED OR REQUIRED`  
`^ PARTY OBJECTION`  
`^ FILING / LEXNET RECEIPT`  
`^ RESPONSE`  
`^ APPEAL / QUEJA / NULLITY / AMPARO`  
`^ FINALITY`  
`^ IMPLEMENTATION`  
`^ PATRIMONIAL EFFECT`  
`^ WHAT THE RECORD PROVES`  
`^ WHAT IS ALLEGED`  
`^ EVIDENCE BEARING ON KNOWLEDGE / PURPOSE`  
`^ STRONGEST INNOCENT / LAWFUL EXPLANATION`  
`^ MISSING EVIDENCE`  
`^ CROSS-LINKS`.

Never use later finality, adjudication, deed or registration as a substitute for auditing whether the earlier judicial route complied with the approved plan and applicable procedural law.

## 4. LAJ enablement track — separate actor, separate proof

The LAJ must never be merged rhetorically into "the court" when the specific procedural act can be identified.

For each material LAJ event identify:

- Diligencia de Ordenación / decreto / notice / service / filing routing;
- handling of LexNET submissions and annexes;
- handling of protest, appeal, queja and clarification routes;
- auction/publicity mechanics and communications where within LAJ competence;
- docket/index/access/audit-log availability;
- whether the LAJ was implementing a judicial order, exercising an independent procedural competence, refusing/omitting an act, or lacked power to alter the judge's decision;
- actual causal contribution to the disputed outcome.

The working allegation of **LAJ enablement** is retained as an investigative proposition. Do not infer shared knowledge, purpose or criminal participation from institutional proximity alone.

## 5. Luis Miguel López Gómez — counsel history correction

Do **not** describe former LPB counsel as having simply failed to object to the disputed liquidation sequence.

The newly controlled corpus shows a substantial objection/remedy lineage under the direction of **Luis Miguel López Gómez (ICAM 71.483)**, including, among other located filings:

- 1-Dec-2020 objections to CAM interest calculations and to the AC filing concerning Community claims — both with LexNET receipts located;
- reposición against the 25-Jan-2021 Auto, expressly alleging that the two 1-Dec filings had been ignored "as if they did not exist" and invoking `incongruencia omisiva`;
- exceptional nullity challenge concerning the 2019/2020 liquidation-order family — court admission of the incident located;
- reposición against the 12-May-2021 Providencia and the 18-May-2021 Auto, expressly putting the auction/publicity/deposit/competing-offer/plan-compliance issues before the court;
- direct appeal against the 6-May-2021 Auto and a subsequent Recurso de Queja to the Audiencia Provincial;
- July-2021 allegations concerning market/publicity interference and the requested reopening of an auction with the plan safeguards;
- express protest against the 26-Jan-2022 clarification Autos;
- the 28-Feb-2022 appeal, with LexNET receipt and document hash located;
- the March-2022 Queja against inadmission of that appeal;
- the Jan-2023 exceptional nullity incident in AP Queja 375/2022, with LexNET receipt and hash located;
- constitutional-amparo routes, including the second amparo challenging denial of appellate review of the definitive May-2021 adjudication sequence;
- a 2-Nov-2023 counsel confirmation that LPB's calificación appeal had been filed, while the exact LPB appeal copy/receipt remains to be reconciled in the present mailbox subset.

Accordingly, the proper forensic question is not "why did prior counsel do nothing?". It is:

> **What did each former adviser actually identify, preserve, file and pursue; what corrective route was legally available; what response followed; what was prevented from reaching merits review; and where, if anywhere, did strategy, timing, framing, evidence, exhaustion or follow-through fall short in the face of the challenged judicial behaviour?**

Prior-counsel shortcomings remain a legitimate audit object, but must be measured against the filings they actually made rather than assumed from the eventual adverse outcome.

## 6. Current Sixto representation — evidence-disciplined continuation

The current representation, particularly the Sixto team, is to be described by **documented method**, not by unsupported comparative praise.

Since the later substitution/representation phase, the located record supports a more explicitly source-controlled and issue-separated approach including formal substitution, document packs, AC-removal/fees work, information/access requests, appellate and calificación work, and later procedural analysis. Future repository treatment should map each Sixto filing with the same filing → receipt → decision → challenge → implementation standard applied to all earlier counsel.

Do not imply that current counsel automatically cures historic defects, controls the court's response, or has adopted every allegation in the public repository. Attribute only what their filed documents and communications establish.

## 7. Counsel-history anti-scapegoating rule

An adverse outcome is not proof that former counsel failed. A filing is not proof that counsel exhausted the best available strategy. The repository must hold both propositions open.

For every material lawyer/team use:

`mandate -> knowledge -> advice -> draft -> filing -> receipt -> evidence supplied -> remedy sought -> court/LAJ response -> further challenge -> outcome -> strategic alternative -> identified shortcoming -> contrary explanation`.

This prevents two opposite errors:

1. using counsel as a blanket explanation that neutralises potentially abnormal judicial conduct; and
2. blaming the court for every adverse result where a counsel/party/evidence/procedural explanation may exist.

## 8. Controlled source anchors — Luis Miguel liquidation/remedy lineage

The following anchors are now canonical for the new filing inventory:

- **1-Dec-2020 interest filing:** LexNET `1202010372434856`; principal `intereses.pdf`; hash `b5a51a2552246a30ba1346fbdfdae38b4c8d28da92d9a22873fcd4bd37a226a7`.
- **1-Dec-2020 AC/Community filing:** LexNET `1202010372438581`; principal `AC.pdf`; hash `98f9976556d354e1e914ba636fdba19e20e76c1a00da53cef982e59208f57ab9`.
- **4-Feb-2022 Protesta:** sent-message LexNET `202210466939566`; acknowledgment `1202210466939566`; hash `e40bde1324f4b923b04790ba3a2af1aa03a09bb05ae7861eaed84923ca4eeaf6`.
- **28-Feb-2022 appeal:** LexNET `202210473582179`; hash `094fbdbd52840f52f76afcad5ea55fee8c9a844c16205381cf9ea3984d29a0d4`.
- **16-Jan-2023 AP nullity:** sent-message LexNET `202310547846140`; acknowledgment `1202310547846140`; hash `ec5d4c0f17b61891418d2070a39b93acd00ea129e936fa753f449cb424080312`.

Where a later certified court index supplies a missing receipt, final filed version or annex list, update the canonical inventory rather than creating a parallel chronology.

## 9. Source denominator and completeness boundary

`ALL FILINGS BY LUIS MIGUEL LÓPEZ` means **all filings located or positively identifiable in the controlled repository/Gmail/Drive corpus reviewed as of 30-Aug-2026**. It does **not** mean a certified complete denominator of every filing he ever made.

The certified court/LAJ chronological index and per-piece export remain necessary to prove completeness. Until then:

- `FILED — LEXNET RECEIPT LOCATED` is stronger than a draft or covering email;
- `FILED — COURT DISPOSITION CONFIRMS` is permissible where the later court act identifies the filing;
- `FILED — CONTEMPORANEOUS COUNSEL CONFIRMATION` must not be upgraded to receipt-located;
- `DRAFT / INTENDED` must never be presented as filed;
- `COURT NOTIFICATION` is not a counsel filing;
- `PROFESSIONAL NOTICE / ADVICE` is not a judicial filing.

## 10. Acceptance criteria

A future liquidation-plan/judge/LAJ/counsel pass is incomplete unless it:

1. compares every material liquidation implementation act to the exact approved-plan term and applicable legal route;
2. preserves the minimum plan-compliance conflict separately from allegations of deliberate concealment or criminality;
3. identifies every judge and LAJ act separately where the evidence permits;
4. retains the LAJ-enablement allegation but requires actor-specific knowledge/purpose/contribution proof;
5. preserves the full located Luis Miguel López objection/remedy lineage and does not rewrite prior counsel as passive;
6. audits possible former-counsel shortcomings against what was actually filed;
7. maps current Sixto work by documentary acts and outcomes rather than unsupported praise;
8. keeps `NOT LOCATED` distinct from `DID NOT EXIST`;
9. keeps LPB, third-party owners, operating-business and other consequence tracks separate; and
10. links the analysis to the certified-docket P0, credit reconciliation, 7-June causation, funded-exit and de-facto/shadow-administration tracks.

## 11. External-action boundary

This supplement authorises source-controlled analysis/publication only. It does not itself authorise a new court filing, email, accusation, authority contact, witness contact or other external communication.