# Cuatrecasas / Matkator / La Laguna — public strategy and notice control

**Control date:** 18 September 2026  
**Publication status:** PUBLIC — strategy disclosure expressly authorised by Gil Marer  
**Scope:** Cambiario 1048/2019 · ETJ 163/2020 · DP 748/2026 · proposed preservation and accountability steps  
**Rule:** allegations remain allegations; publication does not convert a hypothesis into a judicial finding and does not itself constitute formal service.

## 1. What changed on 16–18 September

- **16 September 2026 — DP 748/2026:** the LAJ ordered the subsidiary appeal to proceed and gave the Ministerio Fiscal five days to make submissions.
- **17 September 2026 — ETJ 163/2020:** Magistrada-Juez Carmen Rosa Marrero Fumero dismissed Matkator's reconsideration application against the 19 June refusal to suspend enforcement. The order says that no appeal lies.
- **18 September 2026:** the ETJ order was transmitted to Matkator's representation.

These events move in opposite directions: the civil enforcement suspension challenge has failed at this stage, while the criminal appeal against maintenance of the provisional dismissal is now procedurally active at the originating criminal court.

## 2. What the 17 September civil order does — and does not do

It **does**:

- refuse suspension under Article 569 LEC;
- reason that the Article 569 threshold is not met because the execution derives from a juicio cambiario;
- dismiss Matkator's reconsideration application.

It **does not**:

- decide whether any crime occurred;
- decide the pending DP 748 appeal;
- declare the formation of the Cambiario title criminally lawful;
- declare any later ETJ act criminally lawful;
- identify an adjudicatee, assignee, nominee or ultimate beneficiary;
- prove that adjudication, assignment, registration or possession has been completed;
- extinguish any criminal, restitutionary, contractual or disciplinary issue belonging to another competent process.

## 3. Publicly declared immediate strategy

The client side has authorised publication of the intended next steps.

### ETJ 163/2020

Counsel is being asked urgently to assess and, if appropriate, file:

1. an **Article 215.2 LEC request for complement** because the 26 June reconsideration application contained a distinct subsidiary prayer for suspension only of irreversible adjudication, registration, possession and disposal steps, and the 17 September order does not separately address that subsidiary relief;
2. clarification strictly to delimit what the 17 September order decides and does not decide;
3. an urgent request for **current docket certification and traceability** of any adjudication, assignment of the remate, payment/consignment, decree, Registry mandate or possession step;
4. preservation of all records identifying any actual or contemplated assignee.

This publication does not state that the Article 215 application has already been filed. Filing status must be proved by LexNET or court receipt before it is described as filed.

### DP 748/2026

Counsel is being asked urgently to assess and, if appropriate:

1. place the 17 September ETJ order into DP 748 as a **supervening document** during the now-active appeal processing;
2. ensure it is part of the material seen by the Ministerio Fiscal and later by the Audiencia Provincial if and when the appeal is remitted;
3. preserve the criminal hypothesis around the **formation and service of Cambiario 1048/2019**, later ETJ representations or omissions, finca 8584 and any adjudication/cession;
4. seek only finite, source-defined investigative measures rather than a general review of the civil proceeding;
5. examine whether the civil-restitution dimension of the criminal case supports any appropriate property-preservation or Registry measure if the legal requirements are met.

## 3A. Counsel handoff status — 18 September

A four-part urgent working package was delivered to current counsel for review on 18 September. The public-safe proposition is limited:

- it contains working drafts for an Article 215.2 complement request, contribution of the 17 September ETJ order to DP 748, an ETJ certification/traceability request, a separate Cuatrecasas preservation/actual-notice communication, and a 24-hour action note;
- the working materials remain **drafts for counsel review** unless and until a signed filing, presentation receipt, formal notice or court act proves the next status;
- the private binder, editable files, counsel advice and email content are not published;
- no public statement should say that the Article 215.2 request, DP 748 contribution, ETJ certification request or Cuatrecasas preservation notice has been filed/sent merely because the working package was delivered to counsel.

### Deadline control

The working note flags the five-day Article 215.2 LEC period and asks counsel to verify the complete notification record immediately. **No final expiry date is calculated or published here.** The legal computation must be made by counsel from the complete service record and applicable procedural rules.

## 4. Public notice concerning any third-party remate recipient

No present source identifies an actual assignee or ultimate beneficiary.

The client side nevertheless gives public notice of its position:

- a later adjudication or assignment cannot, merely by occurring, rewrite the legal character of antecedent conduct if a competent criminal court later finds that conduct criminal;
- the legal position of any third party must be assessed on its own facts, including title, consideration, good or bad faith, knowledge, Registry protection and any restitution rules;
- an eventual third party is not accused by this publication merely for considering or receiving an assignment;
- any prospective recipient should understand that the title/enforcement/asset chain is contested, DP 748's appeal is procedurally active, and the identity, consideration, instructions and beneficial-ownership trail of any cession are intended to be preserved and examined.

**Important:** publication on this website is not a substitute for formal judicial notice, burofax, service, Registry action or any other legally required communication.

## 5. Notice and preservation directed to Cuatrecasas

The intended external step is a **separate preservation / actual-notice communication**, not automatically a MASC negotiation.

Counsel is being asked to consider a formal communication requiring preservation of the finite evidence relevant to:

- engagement/client/entity mapping;
- invoices, WIP/time records, payments and allocation;
- original pagarés and their accounting/legal attribution;
- Cambiario instructions, service/localisation information and the contact information available to the firm;
- ETJ adjudication and cession instructions;
- conflict, confidentiality, information-barrier and matter-access records;
- risk/compliance/management escalation;
- identity and communications of any contemplated assignee;
- payment, source-of-funds, KYC/AML or beneficial-ownership material lawfully held and relevant to any cession;
- Registry and possession instructions;
- later decisions to continue enforcement after receipt of the asset-identity controversy and DP 748 material.

A separate MASC may be considered for civil contractual/restitutionary purposes. It should not automatically be merged with the evidential preservation notice because negotiation confidentiality and evidence-preservation serve different functions.

## 6. Judicial accountability: knowledge first, conclusions later

The client side disputes the 17 September reasoning and intends to preserve a dated **knowledge-and-decision ledger**.

The present public position is not that the judge has already committed prevaricación or another offence merely by issuing an adverse order. The intended record instead fixes:

- what was before the civil court;
- the subsidiary relief actually requested on 26 June;
- Cuatrecasas's 3 September opposition;
- the 9 September criminal filing;
- the 16 September criminal appeal-processing order;
- the 17 September civil order;
- the response to any Article 215 request;
- and every later adjudication, cession, registration or possession act.

If later facts meet the statutory thresholds for criminal, disciplinary or State-liability review, those questions belong to the competent bodies. The purpose now is to prevent loss of chronology, knowledge and causation.

## 7. Comparative authorities under review

These authorities are **comparators**, not findings about the Sun Park facts:

- **STC 144/2007** — complement/nullity and omitted substantive claims;
- **STC 166/2025** — Article 215 LEC and incident of nullity as routes for incongruencia omisiva;
- **STS 1736/2002** — criminal fraud involving a cession of remate; the criminal judgment nullified the cession and subsequent auction acts;
- **STS 539/2016** — procedural fraud in a mortgage-enforcement setting and the need for deception sufficiently capable of operating within judicial proceedings;
- **STS 236/2023** — distinction between ordinary false allegations and a procedural mechanism capable of depriving the other side of defence;
- **DGSJFP Resolution 13 March 2026 (BOE-A-2026-13186)** — Registry treatment of a criminal action with a real-property restitution dimension and the need to involve the registered owner.

## 8. Source boundary

Primary court sources published in source-safe form:

- docs/cuatrecasas/DP748/2026-09-16_diligencia_ordenacion_apelacion_subs_fulltext_source_safe.md
- docs/cuatrecasas/DP748/2026-09-16_case_management_order_subsidiary_appeal_en.md
- docs/cuatrecasas/ETJ163/2026-09-17_auto_reposicion_suspension_fulltext_source_safe.md
- docs/cuatrecasas/ETJ163/2026-09-17_order_reposicion_suspension_fulltext_en.md

The underlying signed court documents remain controlling.