# FORENSIC SCAN — CRITICAL AUTOS IN CONCURSO 36/2012

> **SUPERSEDED DATE LAYER — 23 August 2026.** This 21 August report body preserves an earlier 8/9/14-February reconstruction for the creditor-substitution order. It is not the current publication control. The repository now uses **15 February 2018** and a twenty-day appeal, while direct reinspection of the complete three-page source remains open. Do not quote the earlier date layers as established fact. Restricted Drive locators and court verification codes have also been withheld from this public derivative.

**Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria**
**Debtor:** Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB)
**Cut-off:** 21 August 2026
**Purpose:** reconstruct what the court actually authorised, refused, conditioned, assumed, reserved or left unresolved; then test the later possession, exploitation, debt, title, surplus and third-party-property chain.

> **Central question.** Starting only with the actual judicial orders in Concurso 36/2012, can an unbroken legal and evidential chain be built from the insolvency estate as it really existed, through possession and exploitation from 2018 onward, to the 2022 transfer and the subsequent Hotel New Trend (HNT) / Canarian Hospitality position — asset by asset, condition by condition and euro by euro?

## Evidential vocabulary

- **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** — the proposition is stated or directly demonstrated by the original judicial, notarial, registry, corporate or contemporaneous filing examined.
- **STRONGLY SUPPORTED** — mutually consistent high-quality sources establish the proposition, but the best or complete primary item is missing.
- **INFERENCE** — reasoned conclusion from established facts; not itself stated by a primary document.
- **UNRESOLVED** — the available evidence permits more than one material answer.
- **CONTRADICTED** — inconsistent with a stronger primary source.
- **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** — the item was sought but no reliable complete copy was found.

Names of persons and entities identify procedural or documentary roles only. This report does not infer criminal intent, collusion, invalidity or professional misconduct from an evidential gap, error, adverse ruling, role overlap or later benefit.

---

# A. Executive forensic finding

## 1. The judicial perimeter was LPB's estate, not “Sun Park” as an undivided hotel

**PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT.** The 6 June 2012 declaration concerns LPB. The 19 December 2017 liquidation auto suspended LPB over **“su patrimonio”**. The 16 April 2018 approval stated: **“Se excluyen de la liquidación los bienes de propiedad ajena.”** Its 159-finca list omits Matkator samples 8584 and 8588, whose 2018 Registry notes show Matkator as 100% owner. No examined auto supplies an extraconcursal transfer mechanism. **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED.** [S01–S03, S18–S19]

## 2. The 26 January 2022 “adjudication” description is wrong on the evidence currently held

**PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT.** Definitive approval to CAM is the auto of **18 May 2021**. The two 26 January 2022 autos only clarify separate 15 October rulings; one says the event was a **“comparecencia de licitación por presentación de mejor oferta y no una subasta.”** Neither January fallo adjudicates assets, fixes consideration or decides surplus. The accurate sequence is: approval 18 May; challenges dismissed 15 October; clarification 26 January; notarial implementation 21 February. [S12–S17]

## 3. The 2021 approval was asset-specific and transaction-specific; it was not an order delivering the whole hotel, the business, or possession

**PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT.** The 18 May auto approved (i) dación of the enumerated 159 mortgaged LPB apartment fincas, (ii) direct sale of fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654 for €400,000, and (iii) specified costs/taxes/Community conditions. It does not expressly transfer third-party units, CEXP/business rights, licences, goodwill, furniture, keys, pre-title income or whole-complex possession. Annex II required future deeds, excluded business/labour succession and granted no present exploitation. It also duplicates finca 8579 and omits 8519; later judicial/notarial lists use the corrected range. [S03, S12, S42]

## 4. No examined order authorises the June 2018 practical-control transition or whole-hotel exploitation before title

The 26 June 2018 auto only stayed realisation of listed apartments. On 24 February 2021 the AC said it had not delivered LPB possession; CAM said it owned 54 units and relied on Community decisions. The court recorded fragmented title and factual uncertainty, then refused relief without granting CAM authority. Protocol 457 states traditio occurred on 21 February 2022. For the alleged 7 June 2018 control change and pre-title works, operation or income: **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED.** Private/community/administrative authority remains **UNRESOLVED**. [S05, S09, S17]

## 5. The 2018 locales deed was not judicially convalidated; its later implementation remains incompletely reconciled

Protocol 2150 was executed on 28 November 2018; the LAJ direction to formalise came fourteen days later. The AC's 20 December report says the €400,000 cheque became effective and identifies initial fee-payment steps. That proves the AC's account, not an independent bank ledger. On 24 October 2019 the judge found the deed occurred **“sin autorización de este Juzgado”** and ordered **“No haber lugar a convalidar.”** The 18 May 2021 auto later approved the €400,000 branch, but Protocol 457 omits those 31 fincas. Reversal, legal cure/fresh conveyance, final cash application and Registry outcome remain **UNRESOLVED**. [S07, S12, S32–S35]

## 6. Debt and value figures have different legal functions

The record uses non-interchangeable figures: €9,052,251.69 recognised secured credit; €12,251,446.21 reported burden; €13,168,082.02 better-offer mortgage threshold/deed consideration; €9,776,003.13 whole-complex appraisal including foreign fincas; €7,096,913.83 LPB real estate; €6,607,551.87 plan/AP 159-unit appraisal; and Annex II's inconsistent €7,065,384.42. The Community €1,145,798.29 was a bidder condition, expressly not a judicially allowed claim. The AP also recites €9,052,877.88—€626.19 above the 8 February operative components. [S06, S10, S26, S29, S42]

The 8 February auto changed creditor identity at the then-recognised amount. A separate 16 April auto permitted interest growth within mortgage maxima. Later rulings explain the route to the €3,182,000 first-loan cap; that exact cap step makes the €13,168,082.02 arithmetic work. What remains **UNRESOLVED** is whether every component had accrued, was correctly classified and was compensable at closing. Assignment economics, accrual certificate, payoff and AC closing ledger are missing. [S08, S17, S26–S30]

## 7. A surplus cannot yet be calculated reliably, and payment cannot be presumed

Plan rules reserve any excess to the estate/creditors, but no asset-matched closing value, final allowed debt, transfer statement and estate ledger are held. **No primary evidence of payment has yet been identified.** This does not prove non-payment. Missing are a sobrante calculation/deposit, final accounts and conclusion order. Finca 8751's 6 May 2022 note shows CAM title but still displays the mortgage under `CARGAS`; later cancellation certification is absent. [S03, S23]

## 8. Creditor succession is evidenced; its economics and final payoff are not

The 8 February auto recognises CAM instead of PH122 for €9,052,251.69 plus unquantified contingent costs and says assignment changes holder, not the definitive-text quantum. Finca 8751's Registry chain supports Bankia→SAREB→PH122→CAM for that sample. But Protocol 2248 schedules, assignment price/payment, AC verification report and final payoff are missing. Entity-suffix variations are presently clerical/nomenclature issues, not evidence of intent. [S23, S26]

## 9. Subsequent corporate shorthand does not repair a missing property-by-property bridge

**PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT.** The November 2022 BORME segregation notice says CAM transferred, in block and by universal succession, a unit described as the Sun Park complex/economic unit to HNT for transformation and hotel exploitation. That proves the announced corporate restructuring. It does not prove that CAM had acquired every third-party finca or every private right described by that shorthand. The HNT chain must still be tested against each CAM title and each non-CAM asset. [S21]

## 10. Overall answer to the central question

**No — not yet.** A strong chain can be constructed for: declaration of LPB's insolvency; suspension of LPB's powers; approval of a specific 159-finca/31-finca proposal; the better-offer process; definitive approval to CAM; and notarial implementation of the mortgaged-finca branch. The chain breaks at least at:

1. the legal authority for the June 2018 practical-control transition;
2. the authority and accounts for pre-title exploitation, works and income;
3. any bridge from Matkator/other third-party title into the insolvency transaction;
4. Annex II's duplicated/omitted finca and inconsistent 159-unit valuation → corrected plan/order scope;
5. the 2018 locales deed → 2019 non-convalidation → 2021 approval → final payment/accounting/registry sequence;
6. the final judicially allowed/compensable debt at closing;
7. any asset-matched sobrante calculation and payment;
8. terminal disposition of the 2022 review chain, proof of the deed's five-day court communication, subsequent charge-cancellation order/mandamiento and registry implementation;
9. the executed/registered CAM→HNT asset/passive schedule and property-level continuity; and
10. the final accounts/conclusion of the insolvency.

---

# Method and limitations

The scan covered the Por Derecho repository at clean commit `a50e034b13ae9942ac18f277bdb8f2274e3b60dd`, its evidence indexes, connected Google Drive, connected Gmail, uploaded/recovered documents, document digests and official public corporate material. The repository audit was read-only. Primary judicial or registry text controls over later summaries. A document's presence in a party filing proves that it was filed only where a receipt/diligencia establishes that; it does not prove the truth of the pleading. A later deed, registry entry or professional assertion is evidence of that later act or representation, not automatic proof that an earlier judicial condition was satisfied.

Completeness constraints remain material. The full court expediente was not available as a certified docket export. Some items are present only as party copies, quotations, filenames or incomplete scans. Negative findings are therefore phrased as “not identified in the evidence examined”, never as proof that no such document exists in the court file.

---

# Source key

| ID | Primary source / best copy | Location | Pages / integrity |
|---|---|---|---|
| S01 | Auto declaring voluntary insolvency, 6 Jun 2012 | Gmail message `163d0e6f6da5d4ed`, attachment `AUTO Declaración Concurso LPB - DocExp 1997-14150 08junio2012.pdf`; SHA-256 `04b0454f773e9d74ccd847d09f3e24a9be6b8f4431f6954baebc8ffa586f7139` | 9 pp; complete scan; no annexes in copy |
| S02 | Auto opening liquidation, 19 Dec 2017 | Gmail message `19e7ee756d18c96f`, attachment `DOCUMENTO Nº1 Notificacion Auto Apertura Liquidacion 26DIC2017.pdf`; SHA-256 begins `0080f…` | 3 pp; complete notification copy |
| S03 | Auto approving liquidation plan, 16 Apr 2018 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 7 pp; complete |
| S04 | Auto clarifying liquidation-plan approval, dated 4 Jun 2018, electronically signed 5/6 Jun | Gmail message `194a98a11920fefd`, attachment `20180604 Auto Aclaracion Auto Aprobacion Plan Liquidacion.pdf`; SHA-256 recorded in custody index as `3b236…` | 3 pp; complete authentic electronic copy. An older two-page derivative copy is incomplete; do not use it as canonical |
| S05 | Auto suspending realisation, 26 Jun 2018 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 2 pp; complete |
| S06 | AP Las Palmas, Sec. 4, Auto 78/2019, 23 Jul 2019, appeal 1094/2018 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) (filename says 29 Jul) | 9 pp; complete |
| S07 | Auto refusing convalidation of Protocol 2150, 24 Oct 2019 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 6 pp; complete |
| S08 | Auto republicising CAM proposal, 25 Jan 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 4 pp; complete authentic electronic copy |
| S09 | Auto resolving Aweswell's reposición/urgent measures, 24 Feb 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 4 pp; complete |
| S10 | Auto confirming 25 Jan order, 6 May 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 4 pp; complete |
| S11 | Providencia convening licitation appearance, 12 May 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 2 pp; complete |
| S12 | Auto definitively approving CAM proposal, 18 May 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld); SHA-256 begins `093092…` | 5 pp; complete |
| S13 | Auto dismissing challenges to 18 May, 15 Oct 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld); SHA-256 begins `1961…` | 5 pp; complete |
| S14 | Auto dismissing challenges to 12 May providencia, 15 Oct 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld) | 2 pp; complete |
| S15 | LAJ Diligencia incorporating quarterly report, 27 Oct 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld); SHA-256 begins `6075…` | 1 p; complete act, underlying report 7425/2021 missing |
| S16 | Two clarification autos, 26 Jan 2022 | Gmail `17ea1b081fb1b620`, attachment `Adjunto1(72).pdf` (clarifies challenge to 12 May providencia); Gmail `17ea1adf8c8ee44a`, attachment `Adjunto1(71).pdf` (clarifies/completes challenge to 18 May auto). LAJ finality/testimony act: Gmail `194a98a11920fefd`, attachment `20220214 DIOR Entrega TESTIMONIO 3 CAM.pdf`. Applications: short (restricted source locator withheld), long (restricted source locator withheld) | Autos 2 pp and 3 pp, complete authentic electronic copies; LAJ act 1 p, complete |
| S17 | Protocol 457, deed implementing dación, 21 Feb 2022 | Gmail `18ab89a1775e61b3`, attachment `Escritura de Adjudicacion a CAM 21FEB2022.pdf`; duplicate copy Gmail `18f6ed9bab25f193`, attachment `Doc35 escritura venta.pdf`; SHA-256 of controlled copy begins `0f162c…` | 76 pp; complete notarial copy recovered, including judicial annexes |
| S18 | Registry note, finca 8584 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), 26 Apr 2018; earlier copy here (restricted source locator withheld) | 3 pp; complete nota simple; informative, not certification |
| S19 | Registry note, finca 8588 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), 26 Apr 2018 | 3 pp; complete nota simple; informative, not certification |
| S20 | Sentencia 163/2023, culpability section, 28 Sep 2023 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), misleading filename `AUTO_CONCURSO_CULPOSO` | 27 pp; complete first-instance judgment; appeal status not established here |
| S21 | CAM→HNT segregation notice | [BORME-C-2022-7271](https://www.boe.es/diario_borme/txt.php?id=BORME-C-2022-7271) | official one-page corporate notice; project/schedules not included |
| S22 | Auto granting one-year liquidation extension, 24 Feb 2021 | Gmail `18a8d0cbb13b9ecb`, attachment `AUTO Ampliación Liquidación (incluye accion vs Bankia por SWAP) 24FEB2021.pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia |
| S23 | Registry note, finca 8751, 6 May 2022 | Gmail `18cff447871fa30f`, attachment `11. 2022FEB21 Land Registry Certification of Transfer of Title to CAM SL and charges to CAM SA.pdf`; registry secure-verification code withheld | 5 pp; complete nota simple; informative, not art. 225 certification |
| S24 | AC quarterly report dated/filed 25 Jan 2022 and LAJ receipt act 31 Jan 2022 | Gmail `17ebb618b0608771`, attachments `Adjunto2(46).pdf` and `Adjunto1(74).pdf` | 4 pp report + 1 p act; complete copies; report is AC evidence, receipt act is judicial-office proof of filing |
| S25 | Auto modifying definitive texts for Owners' Community, 20 Jan 2017 | Gmail `163d0e6f6da5d4ed`, attachment `AUTO Modificación Textos Definitivos CDAD PROP 26JAN2017.pdf`; SHA-256 begins `6bd257…` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; filename/notification date 26 Jan differs from ruling date |
| S26 | Auto recognising CAM as holder in definitive texts, dated 8 Feb 2018 | Gmail `163d0e6f6da5d4ed`, attachment `AUTO Modificación Textos Definitivos CAM+RETRACTO - 15FEB2018.pdf` | 3 pp; complete authentic copy; body dated 8 Feb, Judge signed 9 Feb, LAJ signed 14 Feb; filename's 15 Feb date is not the ruling date |
| S27 | Auto dismissing LPB's reposición against the locales non-convalidation ruling, 12 May 2020 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), `MAT-005__Auto_Desestimacion_LPB_12MAY2020.pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; court verification code withheld |
| S28 | Auto refusing clarification of the 12 May 2020 ruling, 18 Jan 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), `30. Auto Aclaración denegada 18ENE2021.pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; court verification code withheld |
| S29 | AC liquidation plan filed 18 Jan 2018 | Drive copy (restricted source locator withheld), `7. PLAN DE LIQUIDACION DE LUCHY 9FEB2018.pdf`; Gmail `1963e7416170ea0b`, attachment `PLAN DE LIQUIDACION DE LUCHY 15FEB2018.pdf`; Annex II separately indexed at S42 | 15-page core plan complete; filing date comes from the 16 Apr judicial antecedent; filename dates are copy/version labels; the exact standalone Annex I ACTÚA copy supplied with the filing has not been located |
| S30 | Separate auto clarifying CAM interest/mortgage-cap treatment, 16 Apr 2018 | Gmail `1963e7416170ea0b`, attachment `Auto Aclaracion Intereses CAM (art 59LC) Responsabilidad Hipotecaria Pactada 16ABR2018.pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; Judge signed 16 Apr, LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida signed 17 Apr; custody ledgers contain conflicting historic hashes, so filename/message/document signatures control pending hash rebinding |
| S31 | LAJ publicity/better-offer diligencia, 15 Jun 2018 | Gmail `167c817fdf0b45e0`, attachment `10. Diligencia Notificación Liquidación 15JUN2018.pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; signed 18 Jun by LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida |
| S32 | LAJ preclusion/formalisation diligencia, 12 Dec 2018 | Gmail `167c817fdf0b45e0`, attachment `Diligencia Preclusión Plazo Venta Locales-Piscinas (12DIC2018).pdf` | 1 p; complete authentic electronic copy; signed 13 Dec by LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida |
| S33 | AC fourth quarterly liquidation report, 20 Dec 2018 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), `18. Informe Trimestral 4 AC - pagina 6 venta de locales 20DIC2018.pdf` | 8 PDF pp: cover + internally numbered pp 1–7; complete report; AC representation, not judicial merits finding; filing/office availability proved by S34; contains sensitive bank/payment data not for public reproduction |
| S34 | LAJ act admitting challenges and making AC report available, 10 Jan 2019 | Gmail `16852afcf702f59e`, attachment `Adjunto1(30).pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; signed 14 Jan, LexNET notified 15 Jan; LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida |
| S35 | Protocol 2150 locales deed and Registry/convalidation bundle | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), `Escritura cancelación ob-rem y venta de locales P.1760-19 28NOV2018.pdf` | 282-page mixed filing/notarial/Registry package; contains 28 Nov 2018 deed and 9 Jan 2019 negative/partial Registry qualification; exact annex topology should be preserved |
| S36 | AC/LAJ testimony and procedural writings, 17–22 Oct and 21 Nov 2018 | Gmail `19fa84e0224689b7`, attachments `0.20181017 Solicitud TESTIMONIO Concursal.pdf`, `0.20181022 DIOR Entrega TESTIMONIO AC.pdf`; Gmail `167c817fdf0b45e0`, `Impugnación AC del Recurso de Reposición de CAM (21NOV2018).pdf` | 1 pp, 2 pp and 2 pp; complete copies; actor-specific procedural acts, not new judicial merits authority |
| S37 | LAJ routing act, 11 Mar 2019 | Gmail `19fa84e0224689b7`, attachment `0.20190311 DIOR Testimonios Fiscalia Comision Delitos AC.pdf` | 2 pp; complete LAJ act; proves routing/status of challenges and requests, not acceptance of underlying allegations |
| S38 | Separate auto refusing AC request to expel Aweswell, 24 Oct 2019 | Gmail `172134c64f5c98dd`, attachment `29b. Auto Denegada Expulsión de Aweswell - 25OCT2019.pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; body/signature date 24 Oct controls over filename; court verification code withheld |
| S39 | Auto 83/2020 upholding Aweswell's standing and ordering nullity incident archived, 12 May 2020 | Gmail `172134c64f5c98dd`, attachment `Auto 12MAY2020 Aweswell permanece.pdf` | 3 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; court verification code withheld |
| S40 | Auto 356/2021 rejecting LPB nullity application on default-interest issue, 6 May 2021 | Gmail `1796aa406ac83582`, attachment `Adjunto1(26).pdf` | 2 pp; complete authentic electronic copy; Nulidad LOPJ-12; court verification code withheld |
| S41 | Joint LPB/Aweswell disclosure/request filing, 10 Jan 2019 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), `4. Respuesta de Aweswell al Requerimiento Judicial del AC 10ENE2019.pdf`; separate LexNET receipt/extract Gmail `1683bff3fa36b376` | Complete 2-page party filing; proves what was put before the court, not the truth of allegations or judicial acceptance; do not confuse with the 10 Jan LAJ act at S34 |
| S42 | Annex II — CAM offer to AC, 15 Jan 2018 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), filename `2. ANEXO II. OFERTA DE CAM 15FEB2018.pdf` | 12 consecutively numbered pp; complete offer signed on p.12 by Laura Acosta Matos; face date 15 Jan and PDF creation 18 Jan control over misleading filename; referenced authority deed and reasonable-value appraisal are not appended |
| S43 | LAJ Edicto / Cédula de Notificación, 29 Jan 2021 | Drive file (restricted source locator withheld), `22. EDICTO Cedula de Notificacion 29ENE2021.pdf` | 2 pp; complete; publishes the better-posture components and ten-day route; procedural notice, not adjudication or closing payoff |
| S44 | third-party bidder Corporación proposed offer text, 8 Feb 2021 | Native Drive document (restricted source locator withheld), `oferta vinculante third-party bidder 8feb2021` | Native document; no fixed page count; contains placeholders and unsigned/blank acceptance blocks in the examined version; proves proposed text, not execution, filing, AC acceptance, funds or perfected legal effect |
| R01 | Repository docket/finality lead registers | Por Derecho commit `a50e034b13ae9942ac18f277bdb8f2274e3b60dd`, `archive/CONCURSO_36_2012_DOCKET_WIDE_DISCOVERY_PROMOTION_REGISTER_17AUG2026.md` and `archive/CONCURSO_36_2012_APPEAL_AND_FINALITY_MASTER_REGISTER_17AUG2026.md` | Secondary discovery aids only; identify later docket events whose primary binaries remain missing; never used to prove a judicial holding |
| R02 | Repository historical finca dataset and Matkator acquisition overlay | Same commit, `research/sun-park-262-fincas/sun-park-262-fincas.csv`, `acquisition-overlay.csv`, `README.md` and `manifest.json` | Secondary/working title leads only; not Registry certification and not proof of ownership, transfer or physical-unit identity |

---

# B. Master table of critical autos and related acts

| Date | Act | Operative effect actually established | Conditions / reservations | Asset scope | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Jun 2012 | Declaration auto | Declared LPB in voluntary concurso; LPB retained powers subject to AC authorisation/conformity; appointed Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte; required updated inventory | Immediate effects; publication/registry steps; creditors to communicate; AC to report whether EH 90/2012 assets were business-affecting | LPB and LPB's patrimony; listed registry/cadastral notices are not an exhaustive estate adjudication | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 20 Jan 2017 | Definitive-text modification auto | Adds a contingent ordinary Community claim without its own amount for pre-declaration fees; leaves the recognised estate claim for during-concurso fees unchanged | Unappealable; contingent claim still requires certainty/quantification; later figures require reconciliation | Creditor claim treatment, not property title | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S25] |
| 19 Dec 2017 | Liquidation-opening auto | Opened liquidation; suspended LPB's powers; dissolved LPB; AC substituted its administrators for administration/disposition | AC plan within 15 days; quarterly reports; LPB remained procedurally represented | “su patrimonio” — LPB estate only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 15 Jan 2018 | Annex II CAM offer to AC | Unilateral two-branch proposal: 159 stated LPB fincas by dación/credit extinction and 31-finca purchase for €400,000; required future deeds | No AC acceptance/judicial signature; no present possession/exploitation; no surplus clause; referenced authority/appraisal attachments absent; second list duplicates 8579 and omits 8519 | Offered 159-finca branch; stated 31-finca branch; values whole 220-unit complex but offers no third-party unit | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as offer only [S42] |
| 18 Jan 2018 | AC liquidation plan | Proposed liquidation of LPB assets; described 159/220 apartments and 31 locales/pools; valued whole complex and LPB perimeter separately; recommended CAM two-branch route | Required judicial approval; Annex II CAM offer is separately located; exact standalone Annex I ACTÚA supplied with filing remains missing; filename dates 9/15 Feb are copy labels | LPB assets and specifically identified receivables/intangibles/real estate; whole-complex appraisal expressly included foreign fincas | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for core plan [S29] |
| 8 Feb 2018 | Definitive-text holder-substitution auto | Recognises CAM in place of PH122 for €857,373.81 + €8,194,877.88 secured claims and contingent unquantified execution costs; assignment changes holder, not amount | Appeal within 20 days; full assignment deed/economics and finality still needed | Creditor position, not asset conveyance | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S26] |
| 16 Apr 2018 | Liquidation-plan auto | Approved AC plan definitively with judicial precisions; authorised CAM proposal subject to publicity/better-offer route | Ten days after last publication for better bidder; later licitation/bond; expenses/taxes/community items; creditor/estate difference; later cancellation order; reporting; third-party property exclusion | 159 specified LPB apartment fincas; fincas 8508–8536, 8653, 8654; other LPB assets under fallback rules | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 16 Apr 2018 | Separate CAM-interest clarification auto | Clarified 8 Feb: the interest part of CAM's specially privileged credits would increase up to the maxima in the mortgage deeds | No appeal under art. 214.4 LEC; did not say caps had already accrued or fix a closing total | Creditor quantum only; no asset conveyance | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S30] |
| 4 Jun 2018 | Clarification auto | Clarified the 16 Apr auto: accepted CAM's 17-May balance certificates for then-applicable better-offer figures; refused pre-offer asset-review condition; no assignment of remate; deposit only after a better posture is verified; later licitation by flexible successive bids before judge | No appeal under art. 214.4 LEC; the figures governed a potential bidder and were not a final closing reconciliation | Same proposal; no scope expansion | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 15 Jun 2018 | LAJ publicity diligencia | Ordered notice-board/RPC publication, ten days after last publication for better bids and licitation if one appeared | Underlying publication receipts and last-publication computation still required | Express 159-apartment dación and 31-finca €400,000 branches, described as LPB property | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S31] |
| 26 Jun 2018 | Suspension auto | Suspended realisation only of listed mortgaged apartment fincas pending appeal | Other liquidation pronouncements continued | Listed mortgaged LPB apartments; no possession/business order | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 17/22 Oct 2018 | AC testimony request / LAJ delivery direction | AC requested testimony of the 16 Apr and 26 Jun autos; LAJ directed delivery | Testimony supply was not a new merits authorisation | Existing judicial acts only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S36] |
| 21 Nov 2018 | AC opposition to CAM reposición | AC opposed CAM on a separate insufficiency issue and represented that the 16 Apr plan auto was not final; expected €400,000 from unencumbered-asset sale | AC position, not judicial decision; native 24 Oct CAM burofax still missing | Locales-sale expectation and estate liquidity | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as AC position [S36] |
| 28 Nov 2018 | Protocol 2150 locales deed | AC for LPB purported to sever/sell 31 listed fincas to CAM for €400,000; deed records cheque, receipt and notarial possession delivery | Executed before 12 Dec LAJ direction; independent bank debit/credit, complete final application ledger and registry effect require separate proof; later convalidation refused | Fincas 8508–8536, 8653, 8654 only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as notarial act [S35] |
| 12 Dec 2018 | LAJ preclusion/formalisation diligencia | Declared ten-day period closed without better bidder and directed AC to formalise the authorised locales sale | Issued 14 days after the deed; appealable by reposición; later set aside by 24 Oct 2019 auto | Same 31 locales/pools fincas | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S32] |
| 20 Dec 2018 | AC fourth quarterly report | AC reported the €400,000 cheque effective, LPB collection account opened, specified AC remuneration paid and other estate creditors contacted | AC representation; independent bank statement, exact payer/payee ledger and later reversal/refund/restitution not controlled | Locales proceeds and estate/mass-credit accounting | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as AC report [S33] |
| 9–10 Jan 2019 | Registry qualification / LAJ challenge-routing act | Registry identified an ob-rem/cancellation obstacle in the title package; LAJ admitted LPB/Aweswell challenges to 12 Dec, routed nullity to judge and made AC report available | Registry qualification not final title adjudication; merits of challenges reserved; AC extension request routed | Locales title/registration and liquidation reporting | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S34–S35] |
| 10 Jan 2019 | Joint LPB/Aweswell disclosure/request filing | Put before the court that the deed allegedly preceded the 12 Dec direction, challenges remained pending and ob-rem/plan issues required disclosure; requested AC contracts/decisions | Party allegations and legal submissions, not a judicial finding; must not be conflated with the LAJ act of the same date | Fincas 8508–8536, 8653, 8654 and asserted ob-rem links | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as filing/representation [S41] |
| 11/20 Mar 2019 | LAJ routing / AC convalidation application | LAJ recorded/routed challenges and requests to the judge; AC then applied to convalidate Protocol 2150 after the event | Applications/routing are not merits decisions; resulted in 24 Oct refusal | Locales deed and related cancellation route | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as procedural acts [S07, S37] |
| 23 Jul 2019 | AP Auto 78/2019 | Partially allowed LPB appeal only as to interest limits; fixed better-offer threshold components | Definitive moratory interest amount/classification expressly reserved; no further appeal | 159 LPB apartments + €400,000 branch described | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 24 Oct 2019 | Non-convalidation auto | Set aside 12 Dec 2018 diligencia; refused convalidation of 28 Nov 2018 deed; ordered republication of unitary proposal | CAM interest certificate; AC Community certificate; 10-day improved-offer route; reasoning contemplated undoing sale if third-party offer authorised | 29 locales + two pools/solaria implicated in Protocol 2150; unitary CAM proposal | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 24 Oct 2019 | Separate Aweswell-standing auto | Dismissed AC's 3 May application to expel Aweswell; preserved Aweswell's status after its admission by 8 Feb 2018 diligencia went unchallenged | Reposición within five days; did not decide asset title or the merits of Aweswell's substantive allegations | Party standing and procedural participation | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S38] |
| 4 Feb 2020 | Liquidation-extension providencia | A later primary auto expressly records that this providencia extended liquidation one year | Original signed providencia, application, precise computation and service remain needed | Liquidation timetable, not asset title | Existence/effect **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** through the later judicial recital in S22; original **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| 12 May 2020 | Reposición auto concerning locales/non-convalidation | Dismissed LPB's reposición and confirmed the 24 Oct 2019 auto in full; treated the AP interest-cap ruling as binding; said later certifications would be heard before definitive third-bidder amounts were fixed | No appeal; new demolition/access allegations were rejected as procedurally late, not adjudicated on their factual merits | Locales/common-area allegations and competitive debt conditions; no new conveyance or possession authority | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S27] |
| 12 May 2020 | Separate Auto 83/2020 on Aweswell standing/nullity incident | Upheld Aweswell's reposición against the 3 Jul 2019 providencia; ordered the AC's nullity incident inadmissible and archived; returned the deposit | No appeal; procedural standing only, not adjudication of ownership or the merits of Aweswell allegations | Participation/nullity incident | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S39] |
| 18 Jan 2021 | Clarification auto | Refused LPB's attempt to reopen by clarification the interest/res-judicata holding in the 12 May 2020 auto | Firm; no appeal against the clarification auto under art. 214.4 LEC | Debt-procedure clarification only; no asset/title effect | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S28] |
| 25 Jan 2021 | Republication auto | Re-stated CAM proposal and conditions for third-party improved offers | 10 working days; appearance; third party to assume stated mortgage, €400k, costs/taxes and max Community amounts | Same 159 + 31 finca branches | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 29 Jan 2021 | LAJ Edicto / Cédula | Published ten-day better-posture route and itemised €13,168,082.02 mortgage components, separate €400,000, €1,145,798.29 Community component and unknown taxes/costs | Notice only; figures are competitive-entry conditions, not a final allowed debt or realised price | Same enumerated LPB branches | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S43] |
| 8 Feb 2021 | third-party bidder proposed offer text | Proposed €14.8m own-funds cash purchase subject to prior conditions and future deed | Examined native version contains placeholders/blank signature blocks; filing, acceptance, proof of funds and binding effect not proved by this copy | Enumerated 159 + 31 package; uses hotel shorthand | Proposed text **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; legal effect **UNRESOLVED** [S44] |
| 24 Feb 2021 | Liquidation-extension auto | Granted a new one-year extension from 24 Feb 2021 because liquidation difficulties and contemplated Bankia nullity actions could delay completion | If unfinished after the year, AC must seek a new extension and explain; five-day reposición available | Liquidation timetable only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S22] |
| 24 Feb 2021 | Separate reposición/urgent-measures auto | Partially upheld only a motivation complaint; kept refusal of inspection/expert/stop-work measures | Conservation remained AC function; responsibility action reserved; factual identity of units unresolved | Mixed complex; no title/possession transfer | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S09] |
| 6 May 2021 | Reposicion auto | Confirmed 25 Jan order | Expressly did not decide existence/amount of a Community credit; allegations about works/control outside the challenged order | Competitive-condition perimeter only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 6 May 2021 | Separate Auto 356/2021 on LPB nullity application | Dismissed LPB's nullity request seeking to revisit exclusion/default-interest treatment | No appeal under arts 241 LOPJ/228 LEC; no new debt calculation | Debt-procedure/finality only; no asset/title effect | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S40] |
| 12 May 2021 | Providencia | Convened licitation appearance on 18 May under art. 210.4 TRLC; fixed third-party bidder bond | third-party bidder bond €735,694.02; reposición non-suspensive | Enumerated 159 + 31 branches | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 18 May 2021 | Definitive-approval auto | Definitively approved CAM proposal after third-party bidder did not appear/deposit | Offer terms: dación, €400k sale, costs/taxes/community obligations; reposición available | Enumerated LPB fincas only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 15 Oct 2021 | Auto on 18 May challenges | Dismissed LPB/Aweswell challenges and confirmed 18 May | Described process as improvement-of-offer, not formal auction | “fincas propiedad de la concursada” | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 15 Oct 2021 | Auto on 12 May challenges | Dismissed as moot and confirmed providencia | Reasoning confusingly said auction held/assets awarded to best bidder | Same proposal | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; internal nomenclature contradiction |
| 27 Oct 2021 | LAJ diligencia | Joined/transferred AC quarterly report 7425/2021 | Underlying report needed | Unknown without report | Act **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; report **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| 25/31 Jan 2022 | AC quarterly report / LAJ receipt act | AC reported 18 May approval final but dación deed still outstanding; reported treasury €2,472.58; LAJ received/filed report | AC statement is not a judicial finding; no surplus payment reported; post-deed accounts still needed | Liquidation status and treasury, not asset transfer | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as report/receipt [S24] |
| 26 Jan 2022 | Two clarification autos | Clarified two 15 Oct autos; one says it was a licitation appearance for a better offer, not auction; the other resolves omissions/date and records July 2021 ownership publicity had been raised | Did not originate definitive approval, convey title, enlarge asset scope, fix debt or decide surplus | No scope expansion | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S16] |
| 11 Feb 2022 | Reported LAJ diligencia in testimony/finality chain | Repository docket registers identify a separate act later challenged | Original text, service and exact effect missing | Procedural implementation only | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [R01] |
| 14 Feb 2022 | LAJ Diligencia on CAM testimony request | Joined CAM filing 820/2022 and ordered testimony of 18 May, the 15 Oct auto confirming it and the 26 Jan auto clarifying that confirmation, “con expresión de su firmeza” | Reposición within five days; later challenges/reviews mean this is court-office finality treatment, not proof the entire challenge chain had terminated | Judicial approval testimony, not an independent disposition | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for the act; ultimate finality **UNRESOLVED** |
| 21 Feb 2022 | Protocol 457 (not an auto) | Notarial implementation of mortgaged-finca dación; states €13,168,082.02 debt consideration | AC to communicate/report to court within five natural days; charge cancellation required subsequent implementation | Enumerated mortgaged LPB fincas; no proof here of third-party-title transfer | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| 9 Mar 2022 | Reported auto inadmitting appeals against 15 Oct autos | Repository register identifies an inadmission ruling | Complete original, applications, service and consequences missing | Approval/finality procedure | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [R01] |
| 26 Apr 2022 | Reported LAJ decree on challenge to 11 Feb act | Repository register says reposición was dismissed | Distinct from the same-date decree concerning 14 Feb; original/service/review file missing | Testimony/finality procedure | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [R01] |
| 26 Apr 2022 | Reported LAJ decree on challenge to 14 Feb act | Repository register says reposición was dismissed | Distinct from the same-date 11 Feb decree; original/service/review file missing | Testimony/finality procedure | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [R01] |
| 6 May 2022 | Registry note, finca 8751 | Records CAM as 100% owner through Protocol 457, while the mortgage still appears under `CARGAS` | Informative note only; later art. 225 certification/cancellation entry required | One sampled LPB finca only | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S23] |
| 16 Jun–28 Jul 2022 | Reported review/nullity chain | Repository registers separately identify 16 Jun inadmission providencia(s); 20 Jun LAJ deposit/error/nullity routing and a same-date hearing providencia; 13 Jul auto annulling the 16 Jun providencia; 14 Jul admission of Aweswell review; 21/26/27 Jul LAJ routing; and 28 Jul submission to the judge | Every primary act and the terminal review decision remain absent; therefore the challenge chain cannot be declared closed | Testimony/finality procedure | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [R01] |
| 28 Sep 2023 | Sentencia 163/2023 | First-instance culpability findings and dispositions | Appealable; not an auto and not a criminal conviction | Illuminates LPB control, rent and passive figures; does not itself cure title gaps | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**, finality unresolved |
| Conclusion date unknown | Conclusion/termination auto/decree | No conclusion order identified | Final accounts, rendition, creditor/surplus distribution and archives needed | Entire concurso closing | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |

**Same-date-document warnings.** The controlled set contains distinct same-date autos that must never be merged: **16 April 2018**—7-page plan approval [S03] and 2-page CAM-interest clarification [S30]; **24 October 2019**—6-page locales non-convalidation [S07] and 2-page Aweswell-standing ruling [S38]; **12 May 2020**—2-page LPB reposición ruling [S27] and 3-page Aweswell/nullity-incident ruling [S39]; **24 February 2021**—2-page liquidation extension [S22] and 4-page urgent-measures/reposición ruling [S09]; **6 May 2021**—4-page reposición/Community-condition ruling [S10] and 2-page LPB nullity ruling [S40]. A file or narrative identified only by one of those dates is ambiguous; no act may be used for another's proposition.

---

# Primary-source records of the critical acts

## Record 1 — declaration of concurso, 6 June 2012

**A. Identification.** Auto, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Concurso Ordinario 36/2012, NIG 3501647120120000351; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 9 pages; complete scanned copy, S01. No schedules are appended to the copy. The act was dated 6 June, electronically/physically notified in the following days.

**B. Parties and application.** LPB, through procurador Tomás Ramírez Hernández, applied on 4 June for voluntary insolvency. The order records no opposing party because it was the debtor's voluntary application. The application asserted LPB's centre of main interests at its Yaiza registered office and present insolvency. Creditors and third-party Sun Park owners were not adjudicated against by this opening act.

**C. Facts accepted.** The court accepted territorial competence, plurality of creditors and present insolvency from the Article 6 LC materials. It recorded the application figures: assets €21,603,513.82 and liabilities €10,186,394.72. Those opening estimates were not a later asset-by-asset valuation or a finding that every physical Sun Park unit belonged to LPB.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Articles 3, 6, 10.1, 14, 22, 40.1, 55–56, 85 and related provisions of the then Ley Concursal. Because the concurso was voluntary, the default rule was intervention rather than suspension of LPB's powers. The court saw no then-present reason to depart from that rule.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “Se declara en concurso, que tiene carácter de voluntario, al deudor […] LUCHY PLAYA BLANCA S.L.U.”

> “El deudor […] conservará las facultades de administración y disposición sobre su patrimonio, quedando sometido el ejercicio de éstas a la intervención de los administradores concursales, mediante su autorización o conformidad.”

> “Se nombra administrador del concurso […] a […] FRANCISCO DE BORJA RODRÍGUEZ-BATLLORI LAFFITTE, abogado.”

English:

> “The debtor LPB is declared in voluntary insolvency.”

> “LPB retains its powers of administration and disposition over its assets, but their exercise is subject to the insolvency administration's authorisation or agreement.”

> “Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte, lawyer, is appointed insolvency administrator.”

The order also required an updated creditor list and inventory as at the declaration date, authorised the AC to access LPB's establishment/books, and required the AC to state whether assets in Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012 were affected to business activity. It directed registry/publicity steps and listed certain fincas for notice. That list is not framed as a final or exhaustive ownership adjudication.

**Conditions, limits and reserved matters.** The declaration took immediate effect, but registry/publicity, acceptance of the AC appointment, credit communications and the updated inventory remained to occur. Ownership of each hotel finca, CEXP rights and third-party property were not decided.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN BEFORE THIS ORDER COULD LAWFULLY PRODUCE THE EFFECT LATER ATTRIBUTED TO IT?** Nothing further was needed for LPB to be in concurso. But the order could not lawfully become authority over a non-LPB asset without later proof that the asset was in LPB's estate or a separate legally sufficient third-party transfer/consent/order.

**Procedural-rights note.** This act affected LPB directly. It did not purport to deprive Matkator or another owner of title, so absence of those parties here cannot be converted into approval of later interference with their assets.

**AC-information note.** At opening, the court received LPB's Article 6 materials, not yet the later definitive inventory. Any reliance on the €21.603m opening asset figure as a 2018/2022 judicial sale value is **CONTRADICTED** by the document's function.

## Record 2 — modification of definitive texts, 20 January 2017

**A. Identification.** Auto, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Las Palmas, Concurso ordinario 36/2012, Section 1; Judge Juan Avello Formoso; 2 pages; complete authentic electronic copy, S25.

**B. Parties/application.** Procuradora María del Pilar García Coello, for LPB according to the act's party table, opposed the definitive creditor list. The AC issued a report favourable to modification. The personated parties received the report; no allegations were made.

**C–D. Facts/reasoning.** The court accepted the unopposed favourable AC report under Article 97 bis.2 Ley Concursal: where the AC supports a requested modification, the report is transferred for ten days and, absent allegations, the judge modifies the definitive texts by unappealable auto.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO haber lugar a modificar los textos definitivos […] debiendo incluirse […] a favor de la Comunidad de Propietarios SUN PARK un crédito contingente, sin cuantía propia, y con la calificación de crédito ordinario, en concepto de cuotas […] devengadas hasta la fecha de declaración del concurso. No siendo objeto de modificación el crédito contra la masa […] en concepto de cuotas […] devengadas durante el concurso.”

English:

> “The definitive texts are modified to include in favour of the Sun Park Owners' Community a contingent ordinary claim, without its own quantified amount, for Community fees accrued up to the insolvency declaration. The estate claim already recognised for Community fees accrued during the insolvency is not modified.”

No appeal lay. The ruling did **not** quantify the contingent ordinary claim or turn every later Community demand into an allowed claim.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The pre-declaration contingent claim had to become certain and be quantified/classified through the applicable process; post-declaration estate fees required their own ledger. Both streams must be reconciled with the 2021 bid-condition maximum before any number is treated as an allowed closing debt.

## Record 3 — opening of liquidation, 19 December 2017

**A. Identification.** Auto, same court/proceeding; Judge Juan Avello Formoso; authentic electronic copy identifies LAJ Eduardo José Rebollo Sanz; 3 pages; complete notification copy, S02.

**B. Parties and application.** The court acted after the convenio route failed/no agreement was approved. The copy does not establish that every owner/operator in the physical complex was heard on asset ownership; the immediate subject was LPB's procedural phase.

**C. Facts accepted.** No convenio governed the debtor, so liquidation had to open. LPB remained the debtor and separate legal person, although dissolved for liquidation purposes.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Then-applicable Ley Concursal provisions governing liquidation opening, suspension of debtor powers, dissolution, substitution by the AC and the liquidation plan.

**E. Operative effect.** The court opened liquidation, suspended LPB's powers of administration and disposition over **“su patrimonio”**, dissolved LPB, substituted the AC for the company administrators for administration/disposition, retained LPB's procedural representation, required a plan within 15 days and quarterly liquidation reports.

English: the order shifted control of **LPB's estate** to the insolvency administration for liquidation; it did not appoint the AC as administrator of every Sun Park owner or of all hotel assets.

**Conditions/limits.** The plan still required presentation and judicial approval. Individual dispositions remained subject to the approved plan and applicable court supervision.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Before any asset could be disposed of, it had to be identified as LPB property or otherwise lawfully available, included in a lawful realisation route, and transferred in compliance with the plan/conditions. Third-party title was not displaced by the phase change.

## Record 3A — CAM creditor-holder recognition, 8 February 2018

**A. Identification.** Auto, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Las Palmas, Concurso ordinario 36/2012, Section 1; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 3 pages; complete authentic copy, S26. The document body is dated **8 February 2018**, the judge's electronic signature is 9 February and the LAJ's is 14 February. The attachment filename says 15 February; it is not the authoritative decision date.

**B. Parties/applications.** The AC filed on 6 November 2017 to modify the definitive texts. LPB and Ayuntamiento de Yaiza opposed. LPB argued that Article 1535 Civil Code applied to allegedly litigated mortgage claims and that the amounts in the assignment differed from the definitive texts. The Ayuntamiento objected that the complete assignment documentation had not accompanied the AC report.

**C. Facts accepted/reserved.** The court treated the claims as existing specially secured claims, with execution costs contingent only because not yet fixed. It accepted LPB's quantum point: regardless of what the assignment deed said, a credit assignment changed the holder, **not the amount**, which remained that in the definitive texts. It accepted the AC's favourable report as having verified the validity requirements and did not require the entire assignment documentation in that incident.

**D. Legal reasoning.** The court rejected the Article 1535 argument because mortgage enforcement did not make the recognised claims “litigious” in the relevant declaratory-dispute sense. Under Article 97 bis.2 LC, it modified the definitive texts to reflect the successor holder while preserving the recognised quantum.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO haber lugar a modificar los textos definitivos […] debiendo reconocerse a Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A., como titular de los siguientes créditos, cuya titularidad correspondía a Promontoria Holding 122, BV: a) […] 857.373,81 € […] b) […] 8.194.877,88 € […] c) Crédito privilegiado especial contingente sin cuantía propia por las costas […].”

English:

> “The definitive texts are modified so that CAM is recognised, in place of PH122, as holder of specially secured claims of €857,373.81 and €8,194,877.88, plus an unquantified contingent specially secured claim for enforcement costs.”

The two quantified claims total **€9,052,251.69**. Appeal lay within 20 days.

**Limits.** This auto proves judicial holder substitution at the preserved definitive-text amounts. It does not itself prove the assignment price, payment to PH122, every schedule, the later amount of interest actually accrued, the final 2022 payoff or title to the mortgaged property. The separate 16 April clarification [S30] supplied an express cap rule for later interest; it did not retroactively turn every cap amount into an accrued sum. The reliance on AC verification is a stated judicial reasoning premise, not independent production here of the complete deed.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The auto had to become final or survive appeal; the assignment had to remain valid; later interest/costs had to accrue, remain within the mortgage maxima, be classified and calculated lawfully; and any dación could extinguish only the final compensable secured claim under the later plan/orders. The complete Protocol 2248 and appeal/finality record remain P0/P1.

## Record 3B — AC liquidation plan, filed 18 January 2018

**A. Identification.** `PROPUESTA DE PLAN DE LIQUIDACION DE LUCHY PLAYA BLANCA, S.L.U.`, Concurso 36/2012; authored by the AC; 15-page core plan, S29. The judicial approval auto records filing on **18 January 2018**. The controlled filenames use 9/15 February, which are copy/version labels, not safer filing dates. The plan refers to Annex I ACTÚA and Annex II CAM offer. Neither is appended to the core-plan PDF; Annex II is separately located, while the exact standalone Annex I copy supplied with the filing remains missing.

**B. Applicant and representations.** The AC proposed the liquidation architecture and recommended CAM's unitary acquisition proposal. CAM supplied the offer and ACTÚA valuation. This is primary evidence of what the AC told the court, not a judicial finding that every valuation, ownership or commercial premise was correct. LPB/Aweswell objections and the court's qualifications appear in the 16 April auto.

**C. Asset/valuation propositions put before the court.** The plan says LPB owned **159 of 220 apartments, 29 locales and two pools/solaria**. It separately reports: prior definitive-inventory real-estate value €15,375,462.70; ACTÚA whole-complex value €9,776,003.13; ACTÚA 31-finca value €489,361.96; ACTÚA 159-apartment value €6,607,551.87; and derived LPB real-estate value €7,096,913.83. Its own footnote says the whole-complex figure includes fincas not belonging to LPB and therefore excluded from the estate. The plan also identifies claimed intangibles (€519,000 net), a Sun Energy Spaces receivable (€101,724.93), client balances (€518,908.69), a C.E. Sun Park dividend receivable (€737,338.85) and a term deposit (€19,140.25), while saying supporting documentation had not been provided and further verification/recovery would be required.

**D. Legal/economic reasoning.** Under Articles 148–149 LC, the AC preferred unitary disposal of LPB's real-estate “unidad productiva”. It said the ACTÚA apartment value was below the reported €12,251,446.21 mortgage burden and expected no auction remnant. It acknowledged the €400,000 locales price was €89,361.96 below ACTÚA's €489,361.96 figure, but reasoned those fincas were functionally tied to the complex and assumed CAM was the only likely buyer. The plan itself said CAM would exploit the apartments only **once it obtained ownership**, which does not support pre-title judicial exploitation authority. These are AC opinions. The later court imposed publicity/competition and other safeguards.

**E. Proposed effect/limits.** The plan proposed dación of the listed 159 apartments and direct sale of fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654 for €400,000; alternative judicial auction; AC execution powers; and statutory creditor payment. It was not self-executing. It neither transferred title nor converted the whole-complex appraisal perimeter into the insolvency estate.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Judicial approval with any qualifications; valid competition/publicity; proof each asset was LPB-owned; satisfaction of the approved conditions; conveyance; Registry/cancellation implementation; and complete AC accounting. The exact Annex I ACTÚA copy, the Annex II listing/value anomalies and the definitive inventory remain separate source-control tasks.

## Record 3B.1 — Annex II CAM offer, 15 January 2018

**A. Identification.** Twelve-page unilateral offer addressed to AC Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte by CAM, signed on page 12 by its consejera delegada Laura Acosta Matos; face date 15 January 2018; complete offer, S42. The filename's “15FEB2018” is wrong. Page 11 says an authority deed and reasonable-value appraisal accompanied it; they are absent from this PDF. It contains no AC acceptance or judicial signature.

**B–C. Proposal and asserted facts.** The first branch offered a dación/`cesión en pago` over 159 individually listed fincas asserted to belong to LPB, valued at **€7,065,384.42**. It stated debt at 20 October 2017 of €11,061,851.43 first rank + €1,189,594.78 second rank = **€12,251,446.21**, plus later interest, and approximately **€5,186,061.79** condonation. The second branch offered **€400,000** for 31 reception/pools/solarium/locales fincas valued at €489,361.96. It invoked €9,776,003.13 for the whole 220-unit complex while offering only the 159 LPB units. It named no Matkator/other third-party transferor and supplied no mechanism for the unoffered 61 units.

**Source defects requiring preservation.** The second list states **8579**, already present in the first branch, where the later judicial range uses **8519**. Thus the offer as written duplicates 8579 and omits 8519. Later plan/order/deed descriptions must be cited as later corrected scopes; a formal rectification or explanation of the original offer defect has not been located. The offer's €7,065,384.42 159-unit value also exceeds the plan/AP's later €6,607,551.87 value by **€457,832.55**. These figures must not be silently merged.

**D–E. Legal function and limits.** Both branches required future public deeds. CAM offered to pay transaction/registration costs, taxes, plusvalía and Community debts; requested full loan-liability extinction/condonation and archival of EH 90/2012 without costs; took assets as `cuerpos ciertos`; excluded business, labour and social-security succession; and required delivery free of tenants. The first branch used **“sin más cargas o gravámenes que las que constan registralmente”** and the second **“sin cargas o gravámenes.”** The document contains no present transfer of possession, keys, control, exploitation, income or goodwill; `unidad de explotación` is argument, not an operative acquisition of a `unidad productiva`. It contains no payment deadline, deposit/cheque, consignation or sobrante clause, and no express all-or-nothing condition tying the two offers legally together.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** AC adoption, judicial approval with corrected asset identity, publicity/competition, proof of LPB ownership, final debt calculation within applicable caps, future deeds, payment/accounting of the €400,000 branch, any required surplus/creditor distribution, court reporting and Registry implementation. The offer itself accomplished none of those effects.

## Record 3C — separate CAM-interest clarification, 16 April 2018

**A. Identification.** Auto, same court, Concurso 36/2012, **Section 1**; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida; 2 pages; complete authentic electronic copy, S30. The judge signed 16 April and the LAJ 17 April. This is not the 7-page plan-approval auto of the same date.

**B. Application/hearing.** The AC requested clarification of the 8 February holder-substitution auto. The request was transferred to the other parties, who made submissions. Their individual positions are not reproduced in the two-page copy.

**C–D. Facts/reasoning.** Applying Articles 214 LEC and 59.1 LC, the court held that a specially privileged credit recognised with a stated principal could increase through interest only so long as it did not exceed the maximum mortgage liability fixed in the mortgage deed. The order supplies a legal cap route; it does not determine the date-by-date accrued balance.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO.- Haber lugar a aclarar el Auto de fecha 8 de febrero de 2018, en el sentido de que la cuantía de los créditos privilegiados especiales reconocidos a Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A., se verá incrementada, en la parte correspondiente a los intereses, hasta el máximo pactado en las escrituras de constitución de las respectivas hipotecas.”

English:

> “The auto of 8 February 2018 is clarified so that the amount of CAM's recognised specially privileged claims will increase, in the part corresponding to interest, up to the maximum agreed in the respective mortgage deeds.”

No appeal lay under Article 214.4 LEC, without prejudice to any appeal against the underlying ruling.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Interest still had to accrue, be calculated from primary account data, remain within each mortgage maximum, receive the legally correct insolvency classification and be reconciled at closing. The order authorises a ceiling mechanism, not automatic use of every ceiling or a final €13,168,082.02 payoff.

## Record 4 — liquidation-plan approval, 16 April 2018

**A. Identification.** Auto, same court, Section 5; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 7 pages; complete, S03. The underlying 15-page core plan is separately controlled at S29; its referenced Annex I ACTÚA and Annex II CAM offer are not appended to that copy.

**B. Parties and applications.** The AC filed the plan on 18 January 2018. CAM's proposal formed the principal realisation route. LPB/Aweswell later sought clarification and appealed; CAM and the AC defended the route. The record does not show Matkator being treated as transferor of its own fincas.

**C. Facts accepted.** The court accepted a two-limb CAM proposal: specified mortgaged LPB apartments by dación against specially secured claims; specified locales/pools by €400,000 direct sale. It accepted that the proposal required market exposure through a better-offer mechanism. It did not find that “Sun Park” was one owner/one finca/one estate.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Article 148 LC plan approval, supplemented by fallback liquidation rules, separate treatment of secured assets, Article 155.3 surplus logic, publicity/competition and later charge-cancellation controls.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “Aprobar como plan definitivo el presentado por la administración concursal, con las precisiones que se contienen en los fundamentos de esta resolución.”

> “Se excluyen de la liquidación los bienes de propiedad ajena.”

English:

> “The plan presented by the insolvency administration is approved as definitive, subject to the qualifications stated in the reasons for this order.”

> “Property owned by others is excluded from the liquidation.”

The 159-apartment list is: 8537–8540, 8542, 8544–8545, 8547, 8549–8556, 8558–8559, 8561–8563, 8565–8577, 8579–8580, 8593, 8600–8602, 8604–8641, 8656–8698, 8703, 8711 and 8719–8747, 8751–8757. The separate €400,000 branch is fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654.

**Conditions/limits/reservations.** Publication in the same manner as an auction; ten days from the last advertisement for a higher proposal; judicial licitation and bond if a better proposal appeared; CAM to bear costs/taxes/plusvalía and pending contingent Community items; no assignment of a remate was later clarified; fallback direct sale only of estate assets; AC identification of LPB-owned immovables with title notes, occupation, condition, value and secured-debt update; creditor-bid credit only to the extent firmly recognised; consignment of any difference; 40-day payment period in the fallback auction rule; Article 155.3 surplus to other creditors; later, individualised charge-cancellation auto after proof of transmission; quarterly reporting; third-party-debt charges excluded from cancellation.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** For the CAM route to produce title: valid publicity; expiration of the better-offer period or completion of the court-run competition; definitive approval; performance of each consideration/assumption; execution of a conveyancing instrument; court reporting; an asset-specific cancellation route; and registry implementation. For any third-party finca, a separate title/consent/order was indispensable because the auto expressly excluded it.

## Record 5 — clarification of plan approval, 4 June 2018

**A. Identification.** Auto dated 4 June; authentic copy electronically signed by Judge Alberto López Villarrubia on 5 June and LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida on 6 June; 3 pages; complete, S04.

**B. Parties and applications.** LPB asked for calculation of the special-privilege amounts before publicity. Aweswell requested clarification of working days, pre-bid asset review, qualitative comparison, assignment of remate, deposit timing and licitation rules. The AC sought the legally appropriate ruling. CAM filed observations and two balance-fixing notarial acts dated 17 May 2018.

**C. Facts accepted.** The court used CAM's 17-May acts for then-current better-offer figures: first-rank loan €11,887,314.33 plus daily default interest within mortgage security; second-rank loan €1,278,518.03 plus daily default interest within security. Protocol 870's loan-2 components (€839,441 + €109,512.11 + €329,564.92) sum exactly to €1,278,518.03. The €30 issue is instead a cross-source movement to €839,411 in the later 2021/Protocol-457 family, whose source-system basis remains to be reconciled. These figures described what a possible bidder would then have to satisfy; they were not a closing-order finding after final reconciliation.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Article 133.2 LEC for working days; no statutory basis/defined content for a pre-offer due-diligence condition; comparison of any later offers reserved to the court; remate assignment unavailable; deposit required only once a better posture was verified; the court's practical licitation method would be a judicial appearance with flexible successive bids.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO aclarar el Auto de fecha 16 de abril de 2018 en los términos recogidos en los fundamentos de esta resolución.”

English:

> “I order that the auto of 16 April 2018 be clarified in the terms stated in the reasons for this ruling.”

**Conditions/reservations.** No appeal under Article 214.4 LEC. The court expressly reserved comparative evaluation until offers existed. Asset review was not made a condition precedent; this is not a judicial finding that the information then available was complete or accurate.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** A bidder still had to file a qualifying proposal; the court had to find a better posture; only then was deposit required and licitation opened. The quoted balances still required reconciliation to mortgage caps and allowed insolvency credit at closing.

## Record 6 — LAJ publicity act, 15 June 2018

**A. Identification.** Diligencia de ordenación, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1, Section 5; LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida; dated 15 June and signed 18 June; 2 pages; complete authentic copy, S31.

**B–D. Source and reasoning.** Acting under the two judicial autos of 16 April and 4 June, the LAJ implemented their publicity route. The act did not independently determine value, title or debt. It described the assets as LPB property and kept the 159-apartment dación distinct from the 31-finca €400,000 branch.

**E. Operative language.** It ordered publication in the court notice board and Registro Público Concursal; permitted better postures **“Dentro de los DIEZ DÍAS siguientes a la última de esas publicaciones”**; and provided: **“Si se presentaren mejores posturas, se abrirá licitación entre todos los oferentes.”** Faithful English: better offers could be filed within ten days after the last publication, and if one appeared a licitation would open among all offerors.

**Limits.** This is a procedural implementation direction, not a judicial conveyance, possession order, proof of actual publication dates or final determination that no better bidder existed.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Publication had to occur; the ten-day period had to be calculated from the last publication; any offer had to be judicially compared; and definitive approval, consideration, conveyancing, reporting and registration remained.

## Record 7 — suspension auto, 26 June 2018

**A. Identification.** Auto, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 2 pages; complete, S05.

**B. Application.** Issued because the pending appeal could change the dación conditions. The order did not decide an application for possession or operation.

**C–D. Facts/reasoning.** The court considered it appropriate to preserve the listed mortgaged assets pending appeal, while avoiding unnecessary paralysis of other liquidation activity.

**E. Operative effect.** It suspended realisation only of the enumerated mortgaged apartment fincas. Other pronouncements and liquidation of other LPB assets remained in force.

English: it was an asset-realisation stay, not a grant of possession, control, security authority, works authority or exploitation rights to CAM.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The appeal had to be resolved and the competitive route resumed before the stayed apartments could be realised. Nothing in this auto could itself authorise the 7 June 2018 practical-control event.

## Record 7A — testimony request and delivery direction, 17/22 October 2018

The AC requested testimony of the 16 April plan-approval auto and the 26 June suspension auto on 17 October. On 22 October the LAJ directed that the requested testimonies be delivered. [S36] These acts prove that the AC obtained the judicial texts for implementation; they are **not** a new judge-signed authorisation to execute a deed contrary to their temporal or asset limits.

## Record 7B — AC opposition to CAM on estate insufficiency, 21 November 2018

In a separate reposición dispute, the AC opposed CAM and stated that the 16 April plan auto was not final because of the appeal. The AC nevertheless expected €400,000 from sale of the unencumbered branch and warned that even that amount might be insufficient for estate claims, depending on Community treatment and the apartment dación. [S36] This is important actor separation: it proves the AC and CAM did not adopt the same position on every issue. It is an AC submission, not a judicial decision or prior authority for Protocol 2150.

## Record 7C — Protocol 2150, 28 November 2018 (not an auto)

**Identification/parties.** Public deed before Notary Manuel Guzmán Ramos; LPB as seller through AC Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori; CAM as buyer through Laura-Patricia Acosta Matos; mixed complete package S35. The deed enumerates fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654.

**Stated transaction.** The deed says LPB **“VENDE Y TRANSMITE”** the listed fincas to CAM for €400,000, records payment by nominative bank cheque/carta de pago and states that possession is delivered by execution. Those recitals are primary evidence of the notarial declarations and instrument, not independent proof of bank clearance, uncontested title, whole-hotel possession or later judicial validation.

**Temporal limit.** It was executed fourteen days before the LAJ's 12 December direction to formalise. It therefore cannot rely on that later act as prior authority. The 24 October 2019 auto later held that the transaction occurred without court authorisation and refused convalidation.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** A valid prior or later judicial route, any necessary cure/re-execution, verified payment/accounting, resolution of ob-rem/charge issues, Registry implementation and reconciliation after the 2019 ruling.

## Record 7D — LAJ preclusion/formalisation act, 12 December 2018

**A. Identification.** One-page diligencia de ordenación; LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida; dated 12 December, signed 13 December; complete, S32.

**B–D. Basis.** The LAJ referred to Articles 155.4 LC and 136 LEC and stated that ten days had elapsed after the last publication without a better bidder. The copy does not itself append publication receipts or prove the correctness of the computation.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “Declarar la preclusión de dicho plazo.”
>
> “Dar traslado a la administración concursal para que proceda a formalizar la venta autorizada” of fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654.

English: the LAJ declared the offer period closed and directed the AC to formalise the authorised sale of the listed locales/pools fincas.

**Limits.** The act also routed the AC's opposition to a separate CAM reposición to the judge. It was open to reposición and was promptly challenged. It did not precede the 28 November deed and was expressly set aside by the 24 October 2019 judicial auto.

## Record 7E — AC fourth quarterly report, 20 December 2018

**A. Identification/status.** Eight-PDF-page AC report (cover plus internally numbered pages 1–7) under Article 152 LC, dated 20 December; complete, S33. The 10 January LAJ act proves it was made available to the parties in the judicial office. It is primary evidence of the AC's contemporaneous report, not a judicial merits finding or independent bank record.

**Representations to the court.** The AC said it treated the locales branch as outside the 26 June apartment suspension; sold those fincas to CAM under Protocol 2150 for €400,000; opened an LPB bank account to collect the cheque; the cheque became effective; the AC paid itself remuneration for identified phases; and other estate creditors had been contacted for payment details. It listed then-current estate claims of €239,743.79, while excluding Community items because the plan expected the acquirer to assume qualifying fees.

**Forensic effect.** The proposition that there was no primary evidence even of receipt/effectiveness or initial application is **CONTRADICTED** by this report. What remains **UNRESOLVED** is the independent transaction chain: purchaser debit → LPB estate credit → exact ledger entries/payees → treatment after non-convalidation → final 2021/2022 reconciliation. Sensitive banking identifiers are intentionally not reproduced here.

## Record 7F — Registry qualification and challenge-routing, 9–10 January 2019

The 9 January Registry material in S35 identifies an ob-rem/cancellation obstacle and suspended relevant partial registration/cancellation treatment; it is a Registry qualification, not a judicial title judgment. On 10 January the LAJ admitted as timely LPB's and Aweswell's reposiciones against the 12 December diligencia, gave personated parties five days to oppose, routed Aweswell's nullity request and the AC's extension request to the judge, and made the 20 December AC report available. [S34–S35]

This proves that the 12 December act was not an uncontested terminal validation and that the court file formally contained the AC's receipt/application account. It does not establish the merits of every challenge.

## Record 7G — March 2019 routing and convalidation request

The 11 March LAJ act recorded that the quarterly report and challenges were in the procedural chain and routed specified applications to the judge. On 20 March the AC applied to convalidate Protocol 2150 after execution. [S07, S37] These acts establish judicial-office receipt/routing and the relief sought. They do not prove that the judge accepted the AC's account; the merits answer is the 24 October refusal.

## Record 8 — AP Auto 78/2019, 23 July 2019

**A. Identification.** Audiencia Provincial de Las Palmas, Section 4, appeal 1094/2018; President Juan José Cobo Plana; magistrates Jesús Ángel Suárez Ramos (ponente) and Margarita Hidalgo Bilbao; 9 pages; complete, S06.

**B. Parties.** LPB appealed; CAM and the AC opposed.

**C. Facts accepted.** The chamber described 159 LPB apartments plus 29 locales and two pools. It recorded the AC's €12,251,446.21 mortgage-burden figure and agreement that the ACTÚA objective market value of the 159 mortgaged apartments was €6,607,551.87. LPB asked that the dación occur at that appraised value or alternatively at €9,052,877.88 from the definitive credit texts. The chamber rejected LPB's proposed restriction and treated debt extinction within the original/mortgage limits as the relevant mechanism.

The AP's **€9,052,877.88** recital does not equal the two amounts in the 8 February operative text: €857,373.81 + €8,194,877.88 = **€9,052,251.69**, a difference of **€626.19**. The report therefore attributes the larger number to the AP/LPB recital and does not silently substitute it for the controlled definitive-text total. **B — strong source-internal inconsistency requiring certified-text reconciliation.**

**D. Legal reasoning.** Articles 148, 149 and 155 LC; treatment of secured claims, mortgage liability and better-offer competition. The chamber expressly reserved definitive default-interest amount and classification.

**E. Operative effect.** Partial allowance only on interest limits, producing the better-offer components later used: first loan principal €7,792,421.02, ordinary interest €967,500, default interest €3,079,104.66 plus daily interest capped at €3,182,000; second loan principal €839,411, ordinary €72,250 and default €314,500; plus the €400,000 non-mortgaged branch.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** CAM/the AC still had to calculate within the ruling and mortgage caps; the court had to run the better-offer route; the final compensable secured claim and any surplus still required closing reconciliation. The appellate order did not convey title or possession.

## Record 9 — non-convalidation auto, 24 October 2019

**A. Identification.** Auto, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 6 pages; complete, S07.

**B. Parties and application.** The AC applied on 20 March 2019 to convalidate the 28 November 2018 Protocol 2150 deed by which LPB, acting through the AC, purported to sell/desvinculate the locales/pools to CAM. LPB and Aweswell were heard; Aweswell opposed.

**C. Facts accepted.** The court found the 2018 deed separated a transaction the 16 April plan and AP ruling treated unitarily, had been executed before the 12 December LAJ direction, and was presented after consummation. The judge acknowledged that the 26 June limitation had been erroneous in leaving room for the separate action.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Binding force of the approved liquidation route, need to implement the competitive mechanism, and lack of prior judicial authority for the consumed separate sale.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “No haber lugar a convalidar” la escritura de 28 de noviembre de 2018, protocolo 2150.

Reasoning:

> “sin autorización de este Juzgado, al que solo se dio cuenta una vez consumada”.

English:

> “There is no basis to validate” the 28 November 2018 deed.

> It had been completed “without the authorisation of this Court, which was informed only once the transaction had been consummated.”

The auto also set aside the 12 December 2018 diligencia and ordered republication of the authorised CAM proposal with a ten-day improved-offer route. CAM was to certify default interest and the AC Community amounts after finality.

**Limits.** The reasoning said the operation “deberá ser dejada sin efecto” if a better offer by a third party was authorised. The auto should not be overstated as a final, self-executing judgment of civil nullity for all purposes. But the deed equally cannot be called judicially convalidated.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** To sustain the locales transfer later, the parties needed a lawful post-ruling route: finality, republication/competition, definitive approval, any necessary reversal/re-execution or legally sufficient adoption, payment trace, charge/ob-rem treatment and registry effect. The current evidence does not close that sequence.

## Record 9A — separate Aweswell-standing auto, 24 October 2019

**A. Identification.** Auto, same court/proceeding; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 2 pages; complete authentic copy, S38. Its filename says 25 October, but the body/signature date is 24 October. It is not the six-page locales ruling of the same date.

**B–D. Application, facts and reasoning.** The AC's filing 2725 of 3 May 2019 sought Aweswell's expulsion from the proceeding. The court held that Aweswell had been admitted by diligencia of 8 February 2018, which the AC had not challenged at the time, and found no basis for later exclusion. This establishes procedural standing, not ownership, title, damage or the truth of Aweswell's substantive allegations.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO desestimar la solicitud formulada por la administración concursal de Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. mediante escrito n.º 2.725 de fecha 3 de mayo de 2019.”

English:

> “I dismiss the application made by LPB's insolvency administration in filing no. 2725 dated 3 May 2019.”

Reposición was available within five days. **WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Aweswell remained entitled to participate unless a later valid ruling altered that status; its property and merits claims still required their own proof and adjudication.

## Record 10 — extension providencia, 4 February 2020

**Identification/status.** The signed original providencia remains **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED**, but the complete later auto of 24 February 2021 expressly states as an antecedent that a providencia dated 4 February 2020 extended the period for completing liquidation operations by one year. [S22]

**Forensic consequence.** Existence and one-year effect are **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** through S22's later judicial recital; the precise start/end computation, reasons, application, service and finality should still be recovered from the original.

## Record 10A — dismissal of LPB's reposición, 12 May 2020

**A. Identification.** Auto, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Las Palmas, Concurso ordinario 36/2012, Section 5; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 2 pages; complete authentic electronic copy, S27. The underlying LPB appeal and the AC/CAM response writings are not annexed.

**B. Parties/application.** LPB sought reposición against the 24 October 2019 non-convalidation auto. The AC and CAM filed submissions. The act's party table identifies other personated actors, but it does not establish that each made a substantive submission on this appeal.

**C. Facts accepted and matters not decided.** The court treated AP Auto 78/2019 as final and res judicata as to the better-offer interest structure: €3,079,104.66 first-loan default interest plus daily accrual up to the €3,182,000 mortgage cap. It also stated that the interest and Community certificates would be transferred to the personated parties before the court definitively fixed the amounts a third-party bidder must satisfy. LPB reported that common areas sold to CAM had been demolished, requested expert/judicial inspection and said CAM security denied access. The court rejected those requests as based on new facts and made too late for this reposición; it did **not** adjudicate whether the allegations were factually true or whether the works/access arrangements were lawful.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Article 222 LEC supplied the stated res-judicata basis for the AP ruling; LPB's Article 59.1 LC objection was rejected. The remaining requests were outside the proper scope of the appeal from the 2019 auto.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “DESESTIMO el recurso de reposición […] contra el Auto de fecha 24 de octubre de 2019, que se confirma en su integridad”.

English:

> “I dismiss the application for reconsideration against the auto of 24 October 2019, which is confirmed in full.”

No further appeal lay. This made the non-convalidation ruling final in that procedural chain; it did not itself rescind Protocol 2150, reconvey a finca, refund €400,000, authorise demolition/access control, or approve a new sale.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** CAM and the AC still had to provide the required certifications; personated parties had to receive an opportunity to comment; the court then had to fix the third-bidder conditions and run the republication/competition route. Any later reliance on the 2018 locales deed still required a legally sufficient implementation, payment and Registry/accounting bridge after the 2021 approval.

## Record 10A.1 — separate Auto 83/2020 on Aweswell/nullity incident, 12 May 2020

**A–D. Identification and reasoning.** Auto 83/2020, same court/proceeding; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 3 pages; complete authentic copy, S39. Relying on the separate 24 October 2019 standing auto, it accepted Aweswell's reposición against the 3 July 2019 providencia and rejected use of an AC nullity incident to displace Aweswell's already recognised participation. It did not adjudicate asset title or the merits of Aweswell's underlying allegations.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ESTIMO el recurso de reposición […] de Aweswell Ltd contra la Providencia de fecha 3 de julio de 2019, que se revoca, ordenándose inadmitir el incidente de nulidad de actuaciones instado por la administración concursal […] y el archivo […] sin condena en costas.”

English:

> “I allow Aweswell Ltd's application for reconsideration against the providencia of 3 July 2019, revoke that decision, order the insolvency administration's nullity incident inadmissible and archived, without a costs order.”

No appeal lay and the deposit was to be returned. **WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Aweswell's continued participation had to be respected in later service/hearing steps; the complete docket remains necessary to verify each later notice.

## Record 10B — refusal of clarification, 18 January 2021

**A. Identification.** Auto, same court/proceeding/section; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 2 pages; complete authentic electronic copy, S28.

**B. Application.** LPB, through procuradora María del Pilar García Coello, sought clarification of the 12 May 2020 auto. The request asked the court to say the AP ruling lacked res-judicata effect and that the interest liquidation could now be reopened contradictorily.

**C–D. Reasoning.** Applying Article 214.1–.2 LEC, the court held that clarification may cure an obscure concept but may not vary a signed ruling. LPB's request exceeded that boundary. The judge expressly distinguished even a potentially erroneous legal interpretation from an obscurity capable of clarification; the ruling had decided against LPB rather than left the point linguistically unclear. That reasoning does not add a new debt calculation or turn the capped bidder threshold into a closing payoff.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “NO HA LUGAR a aclarar el Auto de fecha 12 de mayo de 2020.”

English:

> “There is no basis to clarify the auto of 12 May 2020.”

The clarification auto was final under Article 214.4 LEC. It preserved the earlier ruling; it did not enlarge asset scope, adjudicate title, convey possession, approve the 2018 deed or eliminate the still-required certification, competition and closing-account steps.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The parties still had to proceed under the unaltered 2019–2020 rulings. A refused clarification cannot supply any operative effect not found in the 12 May or 24 October autos.

## Record 11 — republication auto, 25 January 2021

**A. Identification.** Auto, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; complete primary copy, S08. The LAJ edict of 29 January is a related primary implementation act.

**B. Parties/application.** Issued to reactivate the plan's competitive route after the AP ruling and 2019 non-convalidation. CAM/the AC supplied updated components; LPB/Aweswell challenged.

**C. Facts accepted for the procedural threshold.** CAM filed a document stating that, by 9 June 2020, first-loan default interest had reached the €3,182,000 mortgage cap. The court therefore required a third-party offer to include: €11,941,921.02 first mortgage; €1,226,161 second mortgage; €400,000 branch; transfer expenses/taxes; and stated Community components €718,663.24 contingent plus €427,135.05 post-insolvency, total €1,145,798.29.

**D–E. Reasoning/operative effect.** Republished the CAM proposal and opened ten working days for a qualifying better offer, followed by court appearance/licitation if one appeared. No remate assignment; no deposit until licitation was opened.

**Limits.** These are competitive-entry conditions. The 6 May auto later makes explicit that the Community figure was not a judicially recognised credit. The €102,895.34 movement from €3,079,104.66 to the €3,182,000 cap is judicially explained at the threshold level; the same caution still applies to treating the threshold components as the final allowed and compensable closing debt without the underlying accrual/payoff and AC ledgers.

The complete 29 January Edicto publishes the same components [S43]. A native third-party bidder text dated 8 February proposes €14.8m and own-funds acquisition subject to conditions, but the examined version contains placeholders and blank execution/acceptance blocks [S44]. It proves a concrete proposed text; the court's later orders prove that third-party bidder was treated as a competing offeror and did not appear/lodge the ordered bond. The native draft alone does not prove filing, acceptance, funds or a binding perfected offer.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Expiration or completion of the offer process; judicial comparison; any bond; definitive approval; performance/conveyance; final debt, payment and surplus accounting.

## Record 12 — auto of 24 February 2021

**A. Identification.** Auto, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 4 pages; complete, S09.

**B. Parties/applications.** Aweswell sought reposición and inspection/expert/stop-work measures, alleging works/demolition concerning fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654 and denial of access. The AC opposed and said it had not delivered possession of LPB assets to CAM. CAM opposed, said it owned 54 apartments, described a mixed LPB/CAM/third-party complex and attributed common/security decisions to the Community.

**C. Facts accepted/reserved.** The court recorded the competing representations and uncertainty about which units appeared in photographs. It did not establish that no damage occurred, that every work was lawful, or that CAM owned/controlled the whole complex. It noted that initial locales works followed the public deed and apparently stopped.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Conservation of estate assets is an AC function; possible AC responsibility could be pursued separately. The liquidation had been prolonged. The requested measures were not granted on the record then before the judge.

**E. Operative effect.** Only the motivation aspect of reposición was accepted; the substantive refusal of inspection/expert/prohibition remained.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** A separate claim/application with property identification and proof would be required to establish damage, responsibility or unauthorised work. The auto supplied no CAM possession or exploitation title.

## Record 12A — separate liquidation-extension auto of 24 February 2021

**A. Identification.** Auto, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1, Concurso ordinario 36/2012, Section 5; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 2 pages; complete authentic electronic copy, S22.

**B. Parties/application.** The AC sought a further extension. After transfer to the personated parties, LPB and Aweswell expressly agreed; the source records the remaining parties collectively through the court-file result rather than individual merits positions.

**C. Facts accepted.** Liquidation opened on 19 December 2017; the plan was approved 16 April 2018; the 4 February 2020 providencia had already granted one year; liquidation difficulties remained; and contemplated nullity actions against Bankia, S.A. could foreseeably delay conclusion.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Article 427 TRLC was used as an indicator that one year is a reasonable liquidation duration and permits removal of the AC for undue prolongation. Given the known difficulties and Bankia actions, a further one year was reasonable.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO autorizar la prórroga de la fase de liquidación del concurso de LUCHY PLAYA BLANCA S.L.U. por un periodo de UN AÑO, a contar desde la fecha de la presente resolución.”

English:

> “I authorise an extension of the liquidation phase of LPB's insolvency for ONE YEAR from the date of this order.”

If liquidation remained unfinished, the AC had to request another extension and explain why. Reposición was available within five days, with the ordinary €25 deposit rule/exemptions.

**Limits.** This auto extends time only. It does not authorise a disposition, possession, works, exploitation, debt calculation, surplus treatment or third-party-asset inclusion. It is distinct from the four-page urgent-measures auto bearing the same date [S09].

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The AC had to finish within the new year or seek and justify a further extension. Finality and any later extension/conclusion ruling should be obtained.

## Record 13 — auto of 6 May 2021

**A. Identification.** Auto, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 4 pages; complete, S10.

**B. Parties.** LPB and Aweswell sought reposición against 25 January; the AC and CAM opposed.

**C–E. Central holding.** The court confirmed 25 January and said the prior order did not recognise a Community credit and did not intend to determine its existence or amount:

> “el Auto recurrido no reconoce un ‘crédito’ […] ni es función ni intención de este tribunal entrar a valorar o enjuiciar […] la existencia y cuantía”.

English:

> “The appealed order does not recognise a ‘claim’ […] nor is it the function or intention of this court to assess or decide […] its existence and amount.”

Allegations about interference/works were outside that order; a prospective bidder could visit.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Any Community claim to be paid from the estate or treated as allowed debt required its own legal basis, classification, quantification and accounting. The bidder condition could not substitute for that.

## Record 13A — separate Auto 356/2021 on LPB nullity application, 6 May 2021

**A–D. Identification and reasoning.** Auto 356/2021, same court/proceeding, nullity file LOPJ-12; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 2 pages; complete authentic copy, S40. LPB sought nullity to revisit the default-interest/exclusion issue. Applying Articles 241 LOPJ and 228 LEC, the court refused the application. This is a procedural-finality ruling, not a fresh liquidation of debt and not the four-page Community-condition/reposición auto of the same date.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “ACUERDO: desestimar la solicitud de nulidad de actuaciones formulada por la representación de LUCHY PLAYA BLANCA, S.L.U.”

English:

> “I dismiss the application for nullity of proceedings made on behalf of LPB.”

No appeal lay. **WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The debt still had to be calculated under the subsisting cap rulings and reconciled at closing; the nullity dismissal supplied no new euro figure, title or possession authority.

## Record 14 — providencia of 12 May 2021

**A. Identification.** Providencia, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida; 2 pages; complete, S11.

**B–E. Effect.** On AC filing 3539/2021, the court opened a licitation under Article 210.4 TRLC, convened an appearance for 18 May at 10:00 and fixed third-party bidder's bond at €735,694.02. The wording used “subasta”, but the later judicial chain clarified that the mechanism was a better-offer licitation appearance, not a formal auction.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** third-party bidder had to personate/attend and lodge the required bond; the court had to compare postures and issue a definitive decision. Reposición was available but non-suspensive.

## Record 15 — definitive CAM approval, 18 May 2021

**A. Identification.** Auto 164/2021, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 5 pages; complete signed primary copy, S12.

**B. Parties/applications.** third-party bidder had filed an offer of €14.8m plus expenses/taxes on 12 February. The 12 May providencia convened the appearance and bond. The order records third-party bidder as absent/not personated and without deposit. CAM's existing proposal remained.

**C. Facts accepted.** The court treated the event as the plan's better-offer mechanism, not a BOE/LEC formal auction. It found no need to make further contact or grant more time to third-party bidder on the procedural record before it.

**D. Legal reasoning.** Implementation of the approved plan and Article 210.4 TRLC licitation route; consequences of the competing bidder's nonattendance/non-deposit.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “Aprobar de modo definitivo la propuesta de enajenación a favor de Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.”

English:

> “The disposal proposal in favour of Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. is definitively approved.”

The operative terms repeat the 159 apartment dación, the €400,000 direct sale of fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654, and the offeror's costs/taxes/plusvalía/Community obligations. Reposición remained available.

**Limits.** “Definitive approval” of the proposal is not the same as completed title, payment, charge cancellation, whole-hotel possession or proof of every underlying debt component. The operative list is LPB property-specific.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Challenge/finality steps; execution of the appropriate deeds; payment/compensation only in the lawful amount; fulfilment of €400,000 and other obligations; court reporting; charge-cancellation order/mandamiento; registry entry; accounting for value and any surplus. No later step could include a third-party finca without its own legal bridge.

## Records 16–17 — the two autos of 15 October 2021

**A. Identification.** Same court/date/judge; one five-page auto S13, one two-page auto S14; both complete.

**B. Parties.** LPB and Aweswell challenged the 18 May auto and 12 May providencia; the AC/CAM opposed in the relevant branches.

**C–E. Effects and contradiction.** The five-page auto dismisses the reposiciones, confirms 18 May in full and describes the mechanism as improvement-of-offer rather than formal auction, referring to **“fincas propiedad de la concursada.”** The two-page auto dismisses challenges to the providencia as moot but says **“habiéndose celebrado la subasta y adjudicado las fincas al mejor oferente”**. The two formulations are facially inconsistent as to nomenclature/event description.

English: one says there was no formal auction; the other says an auction had been held and the properties awarded to the best bidder.

**Limits.** Neither formulation enlarges the property list. A recital about “the properties” or “best bidder” is not a new transfer of third-party assets. The January clarifications addressed the nomenclature.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Clarification/finality and the same conveyancing, debt, payment, reporting, cancellation, registry and accounting steps identified under 18 May.

## Record 18 — 26 January 2022 clarification family

**A. Identification.** Two distinct autos, Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1, Concurso ordinario 36/2012, Section 5; Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; both dated 26 January 2022; complete authentic electronic copies, respectively 2 pages and 3 pages, S16. Auto A clarifies the 15 October ruling on the 12 May providencia. Auto B clarifies/completes the other 15 October ruling confirming 18 May.

**B. Applications/hearing.** The procuradoras Pilar García Coello and Tania Domínguez Limiñana filed requests saying the respective October resolutions omitted timely raised matters. The court gave the other parties five days; the acts say the result is in the file. Individual responses should be retrieved from the certified expediente.

**C–E. Operative extraction.** Auto A states:

> “HA LUGAR a aclarar el Auto de fecha 15 de octubre de 2021 en los términos expuestos en los fundamentos tercero y cuarto de esta resolución.”

Its reasoning resolves the nomenclature:

> “se realizó una comparecencia de licitación por presentación de mejor oferta y no una subasta.”

Auto B states:

> “HA LUGAR a aclarar el Auto de fecha 15 de octubre de 2021 en los términos expuestos en los fundamentos segundo a sexto de esta resolución.”

English:

> “The 15 October 2021 auto is clarified in the terms stated in grounds three and four.”

> “A licitation appearance following submission of a better offer took place, not an auction.”

> “The 15 October 2021 auto is clarified in the terms stated in grounds two through six.”

Auto B also records that LPB's 2 July 2021 filing had put press/publicity material before the court in which CAM invoked ownership of the hotel complex and LPB asked the AC for information. The court held that material irrelevant to the long-running finca-realisation process. This proves judicial receipt/knowledge of the allegation, **not** the truth or legality of CAM's asserted whole-hotel ownership.

**Classification.** Content, date and function of both clarification autos: **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**. The 14 February LAJ act additionally proves then-current court-office treatment of the approval-confirmation-clarification chain as final for testimony. It does not prove terminal exhaustion of the later challenge/review chain now identified through secondary docket leads.

**Limits.** Neither operative part says “adjudico”, orders conveyance, fixes consideration, changes the 159/31 asset scope, adjudicates Matkator property or decides a surplus. References to ownership publicity are recitals about material raised, not an operative title finding.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The clarifications had to be included accurately in the final testimony; the approved transaction still required performance and implementation. The unexplained “22 January” recital in Protocol 457 is contradicted by both authentic 26 January originals and the 14 February LAJ act.

## Record 18A — AC quarterly report, 25 January 2022, and LAJ receipt, 31 January 2022

**Identification/function.** The complete four-page AC report and one-page LAJ receipt act are held under S24. The report is a primary party/office record of what the AC represented; the LAJ act proves receipt/filing, not the truth of every report statement.

**Material content.** The AC reported the 18 May approval as final but said the dación deed still had not been executed because challenges concerning an October 2021 procedural act remained unresolved. It reported treasury of €2,472.58. No sobrante payment appears in the located report.

**Evidential significance.** **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** that, as of 25 January 2022, the AC said the deed remained outstanding; this is consistent with Protocol 457's traditio on 21 February. The reported treasury is not a complete closing ledger and cannot alone prove the existence or absence of a surplus.

## Record 19 — LAJ Diligencia of 14 February 2022

**A. Identification.** Diligencia de ordenación, LAJ Águeda Reyes Almeida; 1 page; authentic electronically signed copy; source under S16.

**B. Application.** CAM, through procurador Gerardo Pérez Almeida, filed register 820/2022 seeking testimony.

**E. Operative part.** Spanish:

> “constando la firmeza de las resoluciones citadas, expídase y hágase entrega al solicitante de testimonio del Auto de fecha 18/05/2021, del Auto de fecha 15 de octubre de 2021 que confirma el anterior así como del auto de 26 de enero de 2022 [que aclara] este último, con expresión de su firmeza.”

English:

> “The cited rulings being final, testimony shall be issued and delivered to the applicant of the 18 May 2021 auto, the 15 October 2021 auto confirming it and the 26 January 2022 auto clarifying the latter, stating their finality.”

**Limits.** This act records the court-office treatment of the ruling chain and orders testimony. It is not the asset disposition itself and does not prove performance of monetary/registry conditions. Reposición was available within five days. Repository registers identify two distinct 26 April decrees and review/nullity steps continuing through at least 28 July 2022; because their primary binaries and terminal decision are missing, ultimate finality remains **UNRESOLVED**. [R01]

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Testimony had to be accurately prepared/delivered; every timely reposición/review had to be processed to a terminal outcome or otherwise cease to suspend/affect implementation; the notary/Registry still needed a valid operative deed and all applicable implementation evidence.

## Record 20 — Protocol 457, 21 February 2022 (implementation instrument, not a judicial auto)

**A. Identification.** Notary José del Cerro Peñalver; protocol 457; 76 pages; AC Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte for LPB; Laura Patricia Acosta Matos for CAM; complete native copy, S17.

**B. Parties/representations.** The deed relies on the 18 May approval, 15 October confirmation and a January clarification/finality chain. It states that the mortgaged LPB fincas are transferred to CAM by dación and that €13,168,082.02 is the debt consideration.

**Legal function.** The deed is the conveyancing instrument. It is not proof that every figure it recites was judicially adjudicated as allowed credit, nor that all later court/registry/accounting conditions occurred.

**Possession and conditions.** The deed says **“La tradición de la posesión […] se verifica con el otorgamiento de la presente escritura.”** It therefore locates its own traditio on 21 February 2022, not June 2018. The AC was to communicate/report the operation to the Commercial Court within five natural days. Charge cancellation required the contemplated subsequent route. Registry entry remained separate.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** Timely court filing with receipt; judicial/registry cancellation instruments; entry for each finca; final debt/interest/expense ledger; proof of any cash/consignation; separate implementation of the omitted €400,000 branch; and full AC accounting. Finca 8751 later entered in CAM's name, but its 6 May 2022 note still displayed the mortgage under `CARGAS` [S23]. **No primary evidence of payment has yet been identified** for any asserted sobrante.

## Record 21 — Sentencia 163/2023, 28 September 2023

**A. Identification.** First-instance culpability judgment, Judge Alberto López Villarrubia; 27 pages; complete, S20. The repository filename incorrectly calls it an auto.

**Function.** The judgment records an accepted passive total of €9,469,157.93, including €9,052,251.69 specially secured mortgage credit, and makes findings concerning LPB rent/control history. It declares the concurso culpable and makes civil-insolvency dispositions against named persons/entities.

**Limits.** It is not a criminal conviction; it was appealable and appellate finality/outcome is not established in this scan. It does not retrospectively supply title/possession authority or resolve the deed consideration/surplus ledger.

**WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN?** The appellate record/finality must be obtained before treating the judgment as final. Its figures must be reconciled, not silently merged, with the 2022 deed.

---

# C. 26 January 2022 deep-dive: clarification, approval and conveyance separated

## C1. Forensic conclusion

The evidence does **not** support the proposition that an original adjudication occurred on 26 January 2022. The operative sequence presently proved is:

| Stage | Document | Judicial/notarial function | What it did not prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Definitive approval | Auto 164/2021, 18 May 2021 [S12] | **“Aprobar de modo definitivo”** CAM's proposal after the competing bidder did not appear or deposit the bond | Delivery of the entire hotel; transfer of third-party units; final debt liquidation; payment of surplus; registry entry |
| Confirmation | Auto, 15 Oct 2021 [S13] | Dismissed challenges and confirmed 18 May in full | Performance of the approved terms |
| Procedural branch | Separate Auto, 15 Oct 2021 [S14] | Dismissed challenges to the 12 May providencia, with confusing “subasta” wording | A new or enlarged award |
| Clarification | Two autos, 26 Jan 2022 [S16] | Clarified the October rulings; one original says the event was a licitation appearance after a better offer, **not an auction** | Original adjudication, asset-scope expansion, final debt or surplus decision |
| Testimony/finality step | LAJ Diligencia, 14 Feb 2022 [S16] | Ordered testimony of the 18 May→15 Oct→26 Jan chain, stating finality | Conveyance or registry effect |
| Conveyance | Protocol 457, 21 Feb 2022 [S17] | LPB, through the AC, executed the dación of the enumerated mortgaged LPB fincas to CAM | Truth of every debt recital; transfer of non-LPB title; later cancellation/registration; satisfaction of every court condition |

The website phrase “adjudicación de 26 de enero de 2022” is therefore **CONTRADICTED** by the best judicial record. The safe term is “clarificación de 26 de enero de 2022 de la aprobación definitiva de 18 de mayo de 2021.”

## C2. Application and positions before the court

The decision ultimately approved in May arose from the AC liquidation plan and CAM's unitary proposal, re-publicised after the 24 October 2019 refusal to convalidate the already executed locales deed. A third party, third-party bidder, later presented a €14.8 million offer plus stated costs. The 12 May 2021 providencia convened an Article 210.4 TRLC licitation appearance and fixed a €735,694.02 bond. The 18 May auto records that third-party bidder neither appeared nor made the required deposit. CAM and the AC supported approval; LPB/Aweswell challenged it. [S07–S14]

The January applications were different. LPB and Aweswell, through their procuradoras, sought clarification/completion of the two 15 October autos, including inconsistent uses of “subasta”, “vista” and “comparecencia” and alleged omitted issues. One original clarification states:

> “se realizó una comparecencia de licitación por presentación de mejor oferta y no una subasta.”

English:

> “A licitation appearance following submission of a better offer took place, not an auction.”

Both original January autos are now controlled. Their complete underlying requests are also held; the certified responses, LexNET service metadata and complete testimony package remain to be obtained. The authentic 14 February LAJ act proves that the court office treated the 26 January clarification of the 15 October confirmation as final when CAM requested testimony. [S16]

## C3. Debt figure, valuation and mechanism used

| Item | Figure / treatment | Forensic classification |
|---|---:|---|
| ACTÚA objective market value of the 159 mortgaged apartments | €6,607,551.87 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** in the AC plan and AP Auto 78/2019; not necessarily a 2022 closing appraisal [S06, S29] |
| LPB's proposed dación value based on the 159-finca ACTÚA appraisal | €6,607,551.87 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as LPB's litigating position recorded by the AP; the court did not adopt it as the transaction price [S06] |
| AC-reported mortgage burden | €12,251,446.21 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as what the appeal record says the AC reported; not a fresh allowance ruling [S06] |
| 2021 improved-offer mortgage threshold / 2022 deed consideration | €13,168,082.02 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; arithmetic reconciles through the full first-loan cap fixed in S08, while the threshold-to-final-closing-debt legal/accounting bridge remains unresolved [S08, S12, S17] |
| Locales/pools branch | €400,000 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as the approved direct-sale price, separate from the mortgaged-finca dación [S03, S07, S12] |
| Community-condition maximum for a third-party bidder | €1,145,798.29 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as a bid condition; **CONTRADICTED** if described as a credit judicially recognised by the 2021 orders [S08, S10] |
| Quantified third-party threshold before unknown taxes/costs | €14,713,880.31 | Derived exactly from €13,168,082.02 + €400,000 + €1,145,798.29; unknown taxes/costs were additional [S08] |
| third-party bidder headline proposal | €14,800,000 plus stated costs/taxes | Nominally €86,119.69 above the quantified threshold before unknown items, but third-party bidder did not appear or lodge the bond; this was not the adjudication price or a realised surplus [S11–S13] |

The legal mechanism was not a conventional public judicial auction with remate assignment. The plan/clarification created a better-offer process followed by a flexible judicial licitation appearance; the May auto definitively approved CAM's plan proposal after third-party bidder did not perfect its competing posture. The conveyance mechanism for the 159 fincas was dación in payment of secured debt, while the 31-finca locales/pools branch was a €400,000 sale. [S03–S04, S11–S14]

## C4. Exact asset scope

The approval identifies the 159 mortgaged apartment fincas already listed in the 2018 plan and separately the locales/pools fincas 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654. It does not say “all 159 accommodation units of the physical complex regardless of owner”; it enumerates LPB fincas. The 15 October confirmation uses **“fincas propiedad de la concursada.”** The plan expressly excludes third-party property. [S03, S12–S13]

No examined operative text transfers:

- fincas 8584 or 8588, which contemporary Registry notes put in Matkator's name;
- unenumerated apartments belonging to other third parties;
- an abstract “whole hotel” overriding the individual Registry titles;
- a separately owned exploitation company or all CEXP/Community rights;
- goodwill, customer relationships, receivables, licences, furniture or equipment unless separately proved to be LPB estate property and included in the plan;
- possession or income retrospectively from June 2018.

## C5. Encumbrances and registry consequences

Protocol 457 says LPB through the AC transferred full title to the listed fincas, describing them as free of charges, encumbrances, tenants and occupants, and CAM requested mortgage cancellation by merger/confusion. Those are operative notarial declarations/requests. They are not, without the corresponding court communication, cancellation order or mandamiento and Registry entries, conclusive proof that each charge was cancelled or that the factual possession recital was correct for every unit. [S17]

## C6. Sobrante treatment

The 2018 plan rules preserve any excess after satisfaction of specially secured credit for the estate/other creditors and contemplate consignation of a creditor bidder's difference where applicable. The January clarification materials located do not decide a numerical sobrante. The May approval does not contain a final asset-matched closing calculation. Protocol 457 states a debt consideration but contains no independently verified final insolvency ledger or court-deposit receipt for a surplus. [S03–S04, S12, S17]

**No primary evidence of payment has yet been identified.** This means no primary proof of a sobrante payment was found in the sources searched. It does not prove that no payment occurred.

## C7. Was the approval unconditional?

The May auto definitively resolved **which proposal was approved**, but performance remained conditional in the ordinary and express senses below. “Definitive” did not make every later fact self-proving.

### WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN BEFORE THIS ORDER COULD LAWFULLY PRODUCE THE EFFECT LATER ATTRIBUTED TO IT?

1. The approval/confirmation/clarification chain had to be final or enforceable; the 14 February LAJ act is primary evidence only of then-current court-office finality treatment. Repository docket leads show later challenges/review through at least 28 July 2022, so ultimate procedural finality remains to be proved from the primary file.
2. Each asset had to be LPB-owned or supported by another lawful conveyancing bridge; the plan itself excluded foreign property.
3. The exact secured debt capable of being extinguished by dación had to be validly held by CAM and calculated under the appellate caps/classification.
4. The dación had to be executed in a valid public instrument identifying the fincas; Protocol 457 is primary proof of that act for its schedule.
5. The separate €400,000 locales branch had to be validly implemented after the 2019 refusal of convalidation, with payment and registry consequences traceable.
6. Taxes, expenses, municipal gain tax and the approved contingent items had to be treated as the orders required.
7. Any difference/sobrante required by the plan rules had to be calculated, paid or consigned to the correct recipient and entered in the insolvency accounts.
8. The AC had to communicate the 21 February deed to the court within five natural days, as the deed itself required.
9. Charge cancellation required the contemplated judicial/registry instruments and property-by-property entry.
10. The AC had to include the transaction in quarterly/final reporting, render accounts and support conclusion of the concurso.

## C8. Compliance evidence located

| Required step | Best evidence located | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Finality/testimony | LAJ Diligencia, 14 Feb 2022; repository leads to later 9 Mar/26 Apr/June–July acts [S16, R01] | The 14 Feb statement/order is **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; terminal finality and complete review disposition **UNRESOLVED / DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Public conveyance of scheduled mortgaged LPB fincas | Protocol 457, 21 Feb 2022 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S17] |
| Correct January date/text | Both original autos and LAJ act say 26 Jan; deed p.10 says 26 Jan but p.11 says 22 Jan | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** internal notarial-date inconsistency; the judicial originals control |
| Debt arithmetic and legal function | Deed recital plus 25 Jan 2021 auto | Exact arithmetic identity **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** when the full first-loan default-interest cap is used; whether that competitive threshold was the final compensable closing debt remains **UNRESOLVED** |
| Ownership of every scheduled finca | Plan schedule + deed recitals; sample checks | LPB perimeter strongly supported for enumerated plan assets, but a certified property-by-property closing title pack was not found |
| Transfer of Matkator/other third-party assets | None | **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED** |
| Locales €400,000 receipt/application | Protocol 2150 records cheque/carta de pago; AC report of 20 Dec says the cheque became effective, an LPB collection account was opened, identified AC remuneration was paid and other estate creditors were contacted; 10 Jan act proves court-office availability [S32–S35] | Instrument and contemporaneous AC account **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for their respective propositions; independent bank debit/credit, complete estate ledger, post-non-convalidation treatment and later 2021 implementation **UNRESOLVED** |
| Deed reported to court within five days | No stamped filing/receipt found | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Cancellation order/mandamiento and Registry implementation | Finca 8751 note of 6 May 2022 records CAM title but still lists mortgage under `CARGAS` [S23] | Title entry **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for one sample; final cancellation **UNRESOLVED** property by property |
| Sobrante calculation/payment | No court deposit, bank or AC ledger proof found | **No primary evidence of payment has yet been identified** |
| Quarterly/final accounts and conclusion | 27 Oct 2021 act references pre-deed report 7425/2021; post-deed records not found | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |

## C9. Consequence if a condition was not fulfilled

The legal consequence depends on the condition and cannot be stated globally from the present sources. A missing implementation act may affect registry effectiveness, enforceability against third parties, accounting, creditor distribution or AC responsibility without necessarily nullifying the May approval itself. Non-ownership of an asset is different: an LPB-only insolvency order cannot supply LPB with title it did not have. A missing payment/consignation may create an unperformed obligation or accounting issue; the exact remedy requires the original plan, closing ledger, court orders and applicable law at the relevant date. **UNRESOLVED; legal conclusion reserved.**

---

# D. Asset/title matrix and third-party-property test

## D1. Asset-scope matrix

| Asset/right category | What the primary judicial record reaches | Later event/claim | Present conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| LPB-owned apartments | 159 specific fincas approved for dación [S03, S12] | Protocol 457 purports to convey its schedule to CAM [S17] | Judicial route and notarial act **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; final registry/cancellation pack and debt performance incomplete |
| Matkator apartments | Foreign property excluded; 8584/8588 absent from 159 list [S03, S18–S19] | Generic “whole hotel/all units” claims; alleged operational control | No judicial transfer bridge identified; title chain breaks at inclusion/possession |
| Other third-party apartments | Foreign property excluded; CAM told court complex had mixed ownership [S03, S09] | Later 159/220/whole-complex shorthand | Requires owner-by-owner Registry and contract analysis; generic shorthand is insufficient |
| Locales / pools / solaria | Fincas 8508–8536, 8653, 8654 approved as €400,000 branch [S03, S12]; Annex II as written duplicates 8579 and omits 8519 [S42] | Protocol 2150 executed 28 Nov; 12 Dec LAJ formalisation direction followed it; AC reported cheque effective/application steps; 24 Oct 2019 refused convalidation [S07, S32–S35] | Later judicial scope is clear, but original-offer correction, prior authority, post-refusal legal cure, independent cash trail and Registry result remain unresolved |
| Common elements | Not separately awarded in the examined operative list; inseparable shares may travel with units under property law | Community/security/use representations | Must distinguish appurtenant quota from ownership/control of all common areas; no whole-complex control order found |
| Exploitation/business rights | No examined auto expressly transfers CEXP or all hotel-operation rights | CAM/RICPE/HNT/Canarian Hospitality marketing and operation | Private/administrative bridge required; judicial title not identified for 2018–2021 exploitation |
| Furniture/equipment | Could fall within estate only if owned/inventoried and included; no controlled schedule found | Whole-hotel asset assertions | **UNRESOLVED**; inventory and Protocol 457 annexes must be compared |
| Intangibles / financial assets | AC plan identifies €519,000 net intangibles, €101,724.93 Sun Energy Spaces receivable, €518,908.69 client balances, €737,338.85 C.E. Sun Park dividend receivable and €19,140.25 term deposit, while recording missing support/verification needs [S29] | No examined conveyance or recovery/accounting schedule traces each item | Proposed estate treatment **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as AC plan; ownership, recoverability, collection and destination **UNRESOLVED** |
| Keys/physical possession | 26 Jun 2018 suspends realisation only; Protocol 2150 delivers possession only of its 31-finca branch; 12 May 2020 and 24 Feb 2021 record contested access/works allegations, with the latter recording the AC said no LPB possession was delivered | 7 Jun 2018 control event; security/access allegations | **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED** for a whole-complex transition |
| Receivables/income | AC plan identifies estate receivables but no examined auto assigns pre-transfer hotel income to CAM [S29] | Exploitation/collection allegations during 2018–2021 | **UNRESOLVED**; distinguish listed LPB receivables from operating income and obtain contracts, accounts, bank and tax records |
| Goodwill/client relationships | Not expressly identified in 159/31 finca disposition | “unidad productiva” and later economic-unit language | Corporate/marketing shorthand does not prove an estate conveyance |
| Licences/administrative rights | Not expressly adjudicated in the critical autos | Ayuntamiento/Cabildo/RICPE/operator representations | Licence-holder and transfer/renewal files needed; no automatic consequence from land title |

## D2. Matkator sample-finca chains

### Finca 8584

| Link | Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Registered owner before plan | Nota simple dated 26 Apr 2018: Matkator 100%; acquisition 26 Jun 2015, Protocol 569; CRU 35019000361734 [S18] | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** (informative registry note) |
| Insolvency inventory | Complete controlled inventory/schedule not recovered | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Liquidation-plan treatment | Not in the 159-finca apartment list; plan excludes foreign property [S03] | Exclusion **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** on the operative list |
| 2021 approval | No express identification in 18 May schedule [S12] | No judicial award identified |
| Protocol 457 | No identified inclusion in the reviewed mortgaged-LPB schedule | **STRONGLY SUPPORTED**; property-level annex audit should be certified |
| Registry after 2022 | Complete historic/certified post-closing sequence not held | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Claimed later owner/operator | Generic CAM/HNT/whole-hotel language exists; exact finca-level claim not proved | **UNRESOLVED** |
| Legal bridge | None identified | **UNRESOLVED — no identifiable legal bridge in the examined record** |

### Finca 8588

| Link | Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Registered owner before plan | Nota simple dated 26 Apr 2018: Matkator 100%; acquisition 1 Jun 2016, Protocol 412; CRU 35019000361772; note records mortgage [S19] | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** (informative registry note) |
| Insolvency inventory | Complete controlled inventory/schedule not recovered | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Liquidation-plan treatment | Not in the 159-finca apartment list; plan excludes foreign property [S03] | Exclusion **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** on the operative list |
| 2021 approval | No express identification in 18 May schedule [S12] | No judicial award identified |
| Protocol 457 / Registry | No identifiable LPB→CAM bridge located | **UNRESOLVED / DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Claimed later owner/operator | Generic whole-hotel/operator representations do not identify a lawful property bridge | **UNRESOLVED** |
| Legal bridge | None identified | **UNRESOLVED — no identifiable legal bridge in the examined record** |

### Additional Matkator leads: fincas 8587, 8497 and 8498

| Finca | Registered-owner starting point | Insolvency / 2022 treatment | Later claimed treatment | Chain status |
|---:|---|---|---|---|
| 8587 | The repository's historical finca row labels `MATKATOR SL - M LLORENS`, and its working acquisition overlay marks the finca `En Propiedad`; no certified historic Registry tract or acquisition deed is controlled [R02] | Absent from both enumerations in Annex II; no inclusion was identified in the plan/approval/deed audit [S03, S12, S17, S42] | No finca-specific executed later transfer is controlled | The working ownership lead is **UNRESOLVED**; certified owner → inventory → plan → 2022 deed → current owner/operator chain is **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| 8497 | Working overlay marks `En Propiedad`; the underlying title instrument and certified pre-2018 owner are absent [R02] | Absent from Annex II's 159- and 31-finca branches; no insolvency transfer bridge was identified [S03, S12, S17, S42] | A later Matkator pleading reportedly questions HNT registration, but the pleading is not a Registry tract and is not adopted here as fact [R02] | **UNRESOLVED** at every title transition; certified historic Registry and deed chain required |
| 8498 | Same evidential position as 8497 [R02] | Absent from Annex II's two enumerated branches; no insolvency transfer bridge was identified [S03, S12, S17, S42] | Same later pleading lead; no certified entry controlled [R02] | **UNRESOLVED** at every title transition; certified historic Registry and deed chain required |

These three fincas are included because they appear as Matkator-related leads in the controlled repository, not because present ownership has been proved. They must not be merged with the stronger 26 April 2018 Registry evidence for 8584 and 8588.

The repository contains conflicting apartment-number mappings for 8584 and 8588. One source family maps them to commercial/technical unit numbers 511/507; another valuation mapping assigns different unit numbers and maps 511/507 to other fincas. The Registry notes themselves use still other descriptive numbering. Until the division-horizontal title, cadastral graph, architect schedule and GESVALT/MYND tables are reconciled, **no physical apartment number should be asserted as proven for either finca**.

## D3. Other third-party assets

The 24 February 2021 auto records CAM's own position that it owned 54 apartments and that the complex had mixed ownership. That recital is evidence that the representation was made, not a court finding that CAM owned exactly 54 or that the remaining universe was 190, 159, 220 or another figure. The court expressly treated identification of the photographed units and alleged works as uncertain. [S09]

For every non-LPB owner, the legally safe chain is:

> certified pre-event owner → any consent/private conveyance/enforcement → Registry presentation/entry → operator/possession agreement → income and tax treatment.

An insolvency-plan reference to “Sun Park” cannot substitute for those links.

## D4. 2018 locales module

### Properties and parties

The approved locales branch covered Registry fincas 8508–8536 plus 8653 and 8654. Protocol 2150 of 28 November 2018 was executed by the AC for LPB in favour of CAM before the court had completed the plan's better-offer route. The deed states €400,000, a nominative cheque and carta de pago/possession terms. The AC's 20 December report additionally says the cheque became effective, an LPB collection account was opened, identified AC remuneration was paid and other estate creditors were contacted. Those are primary evidence of the instrument and the AC's contemporaneous account, respectively; they are not an independent bank debit/credit pair or a complete, final estate ledger.

### Judicial authority and convalidation

The 16 April plan auto supplied a conditional route: publicity and an opportunity for better offers remained. The 15 June LAJ act implemented publication. The AC nonetheless executed Protocol 2150 on 28 November. Only on 12 December—fourteen days later—did the LAJ declare the period precluded and direct formalisation. LPB and Aweswell challenged that act; the 10 January 2019 LAJ act admitted the challenges, routed nullity to the judge and made the AC's report available. The AC sought convalidation on 20 March. [S03, S31–S37]

On 24 October 2019 the judge set aside the 12 December act, found the deed had been made **“sin autorización de este Juzgado, al que solo se dio cuenta una vez consumada”**, and ordered **“No haber lugar a convalidar.”** The order required republication and contemplated undoing the transaction if a superior third-party offer were authorised. The 12 May 2020 auto confirmed that ruling in full. [S07, S27]

The 18 May 2021 auto later approved CAM's unitary proposal after the competition process, including the €400,000 branch. That later approval is not the same thing as an express retrospective convalidation of Protocol 2150. Protocol 457 omits all 31 locales/pools fincas. A fresh deed, ratification or other legally sufficient cure; post-ruling court filing; independent bank/final estate ledger; tax treatment; and Registry histories are required to decide whether and how the 2021 approval was implemented.

### Locales chain status

| Question | Answer on present evidence |
|---|---|
| Which properties? | 8508–8536, 8653, 8654 **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| Who purported to transfer/acquire in 2018? | LPB through AC → CAM, **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** through Protocol 2150/notarial and 2019 judicial descriptions |
| Was the already executed 2018 deed judicially convalidated in 2019? | No: **“No haber lugar a convalidar”**, **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S07] |
| Was the proposal later approved after competition? | Yes, 18 May 2021, **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S12] |
| Was a fresh conveyance/ratification executed? | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| What primary payment evidence exists? | Protocol 2150 records cheque/carta de pago; the AC's 20 Dec report says the cheque became effective, an LPB account received it and identified initial applications followed. **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as instrument/AC report; independent bank records and complete final ledger **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [S33–S35] |
| Did titles remain in former ownership after 2018/2021? | Requires certified historic notes for all 31 fincas; **UNRESOLVED** |
| Were they included in Protocol 457's dación? | No. The complete deed lists exactly 159 apartment fincas and omits 8508–8536, 8653 and 8654. **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S17] |

## D5. Procedural-rights audit

| Critical decision | Interests potentially affected | Party/hearing evidence | Ownership check | Present classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Jun 2012 declaration | LPB, creditors; registry notice recipients | LPB application; ordinary statutory creditor process | Updated inventory ordered, not held here | No proof opening act adjudicated third-party title |
| 16 Apr/4 Jun 2018 plan | LPB, secured creditor, estate creditors, owners if scope misdescribed | AC/CAM/LPB/Aweswell participation documented; Matkator hearing not identified | Express foreign-property exclusion, but full inventory/schedules absent | Matkator non-hearing is **documentary absence**, not proven absence from full file |
| 26 Jun 2018 suspension | LPB/creditor over listed apartment realisation | Appeal-related participation documented | Listed fincas | No possession/exploitation decision |
| 24 Oct 2019 locales | LPB, CAM, Aweswell, creditors/better bidder | AC application; LPB/Aweswell heard; Aweswell opposed | 31-finca branch identified | Court refused post-consummation convalidation |
| 24 Oct 2019 / 12 May 2020 standing autos | Aweswell's right to participate; downstream notice rights | AC sought expulsion/nullity route; Aweswell challenged | No ownership merits decision | Court preserved Aweswell's standing and archived AC nullity incident [S38–S39] |
| 24 Feb 2021 works/access | Aweswell/LPB/CAM/Community and potentially unit owners | Competing written positions documented | Court noted mixed title and factual uncertainty | Refusal of relief is not a finding that no rights were affected |
| 18 May/15 Oct 2021 | LPB, CAM, third-party bidder, Aweswell, creditors, owners if schedule wrong | third-party bidder had procedural opportunity but did not perfect; challenges heard | Language limited to debtor-owned/enumerated fincas | No evidence Matkator title was adjudicated; court-file notice check still required |
| 26 Jan/14 Feb/21 Feb 2022 | Parties to clarification/testimony; registered owners/chargeholders at conveyance | Both clarification applications/autos exist; other parties received a five-day transfer according to the autos; CAM sought testimony | Notary relied on judicial testimony and title schedule; certified closing Registry pack absent | Originals controlled; individual responses/service and property-level registry completion still require court-file verification |

Absence from the current document set is not proof of lack of notice. For Matkator and other owners the correct label is **issue requiring certified court-file verification**, unless a complete notification log later proves or disproves service.

## D6. Role of the insolvency administrator

| Stage | Information/action attributed to AC | Court treatment | Forensic issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 opening | Updated inventory/creditor list and EH 90/2012 business-affectation report required | Appointment of Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte [S01] | Original inventory/report P0 missing |
| 2018 plan | Filed the now-controlled 15-page plan; distinguished the €9,776,003.13 whole-complex appraisal—including foreign fincas—from €7,096,913.83 LPB real estate; identified unsupported intangibles/receivables; recommended CAM route | Plan approved with foreign-property exclusion and competition conditions [S03–S04, S29] | Compare definitive inventory and missing exact ACTÚA Annex I to Registry titles; Annex II offer separately located |
| 2017–8 creditor substitution/interest | Filed favourable holder-substitution report and was presumed by court to have verified validity; later sought clarification of interest treatment | 8 Feb preserved €9,052,251.69 quantified definitive-text amount on holder change; 16 Apr allowed interest increase only within mortgage maxima [S26, S30] | Obtain AC reports, Protocol 2248/schedules/economics, accrual data and appeal/finality; neither auto fixes €13.168m |
| 2019 appeal | Reported burden €12,251,446.21; ACTÚA apartment value €6,607,551.87; AP records LPB's alternative €9,052,877.88 recital | AP reserved definitive default-interest amount/classification [S06] | The 8 Feb components total €9,052,251.69—€626.19 below the AP recital; certified source and final closing reconciliation required |
| 2018 locales / 2019 application | Executed Protocol 2150 before the 12 Dec formalisation direction; 20 Dec report said cheque effective and identified initial applications; sought convalidation on 20 Mar 2019 | Court later said transaction occurred without judicial authorisation, set aside 12 Dec and refused convalidation [S07, S27, S32–S35] | AC report contradicts any claim that no receipt/application evidence exists, but independent bank/final ledger and legal cure/reimplementation remain missing |
| 2019 standing dispute | Applied to expel Aweswell and pursued a nullity incident affecting its participation | Separate 24 Oct 2019 and 12 May 2020 autos preserved Aweswell's standing and archived the nullity incident [S38–S39] | Service/hearing consequences require the complete docket; adverse rulings do not establish intent |
| 2021 works/possession dispute | Said no LPB possession had been delivered to CAM | Court recorded statement but refused requested measures [S09] | Must compare with access/security/works/income evidence |
| 2021 competition | Supported CAM route and reported conditions/Community figures | Definitive approval after third-party bidder default [S08–S14] | Community figure not judicially recognised as credit [S10] |
| 2021 debt-nullity route | LPB sought to revisit default-interest treatment through nullity | Separate 6 May Auto 356/2021 dismissed that application without a new euro calculation [S40] | Procedural finality does not prove final closing accrual/payoff |
| 27 Oct 2021 | Filed quarterly report 7425/2021 | LAJ joined/transferred it [S15] | Underlying report missing |
| 21 Feb 2022 | Executed dación for LPB; undertook to report deed in five days | Post-deed court receipt not found [S17] | Filing, cancellation, final accounting and conclusion P0 missing |

These records establish acts, statements and unresolved inconsistencies. They do **not** by themselves establish deliberate deception, bad faith or personal intent.

---

# E. Credit, debt, locales and surplus ledgers

## E1. Creditor-position chain

| Transition | Best documentary basis | Date | Amount/economics | Court recognition / objection | Status |
|---|---|---:|---|---|---|
| Caja Insular / Bankia origination | Mortgage deeds and enforcement references in case materials | Pre-concurso | Two secured loan facilities | Opening/insolvency texts treat Bankia-origin secured position | Underlying complete deeds and payment history should be certified |
| Bankia → SAREB | Finca 8751 Registry inscription 14, entered 12 Jul 2013 under 21 Dec 2012 deed and 24 Jun 2013 supplemental act [S23] | 2012–2013 | Portfolio economics not held | Later court/notarial materials also treat SAREB as predecessor | Registry transition **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for finca 8751; full portfolio schedule P1 |
| SAREB → Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. | Finca 8751 Registry inscription 19, entered 29 Jun 2015 under 18 Dec 2014 deed, Protocol 6851; separate assignment instrument Drive `1kmih…`; court substitution trail [S23] | 18 Dec 2014; court act 20 Nov 2015 | Assignment price/full asset schedule not extracted | PH122 substitution put before court | Registry transition **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for finca 8751; economics/all-finca completeness unresolved |
| PH122 → CAM | Finca 8751 Registry inscription 20, entered 15 Jan 2018 under 20 Oct 2017 deed, Protocol 2248 [S23]; 8 Feb auto recognises CAM as holder at unchanged definitive-text quantum [S26]; 16 Apr clarification supplies interest-within-mortgage-maxima rule [S30]; certificate Drive `1WNZ…`; Haya letter `1kX3…` | 20 Oct 2017 / Jan–Apr 2018 | Complete Protocol 2248 schedules, price/payment, AC verification report and accrual history absent | LPB/Yaiza opposed; court rejected art. 1535/documentation objections, accepted LPB's holder-substitution quantum point at €857,373.81 + €8,194,877.88 + contingent costs; later clarification allowed interest increase within caps but fixed no euro total | Holder transition and cap rule **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; economics, all-finca completeness, accrual and finality **UNRESOLVED** |
| CAM → HNT | BORME segregation announcement; underlying project not held [S21] | Boards 30 Oct 2022; notice 16 Nov 2022 | Announced in-block universal succession; exact asset/passive values/schedules absent | Corporate, not insolvency-court, step | Notice/approval **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; execution, registration and property/debt-level perimeter **UNRESOLVED** |

The service role of Cerberus/Haya must not be confused with ownership. A servicing letter can corroborate administration of the credit but does not replace the assignment deed, asset schedule or payment evidence.

## E2. Debt figures by function

| Source/date | Figure | Components / meaning | What it is not |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Definitive insolvency texts / 2023 judgment | €9,052,251.69 | Specially secured mortgage credit | Not automatically the 2022 compensable payoff after all later interest/cost rulings |
| AP/LPB recital, 23 Jul 2019 | €9,052,877.88 | Number attributed to the definitive texts in the appellate narrative | Does not arithmetically match the 8 Feb components; exceeds €9,052,251.69 by €626.19 |
| CAM Annex II, 15 Jan 2018 | €12,251,446.21 + later interest | €11,061,851.43 first-rank + €1,189,594.78 second-rank debt asserted at 20 Oct 2017 | Offeror assertion, not judicially liquidated closing debt |
| CAM Annex II, 15 Jan 2018 | €7,065,384.42 / approx. €5,186,061.79 | Asserted value for 159 offered units / approximate condonation if full remaining liability extinguished | Not the later plan/AP €6,607,551.87 appraisal and not a judicial closing price/surplus calculation |
| ACTÚA / AC plan / AP 23 Jul 2019 | €6,607,551.87 | Objective market value of the 159 mortgaged LPB apartments; also the appraisal figure LPB asked to use for the dación | Not whole Sun Park; not a debt figure or closing price |
| AC plan — whole complex | €9,776,003.13 | ACTÚA whole-complex figure, expressly including non-LPB fincas | Not an insolvency-estate value, debt figure or transaction price |
| AC plan — LPB real estate | €7,096,913.83 | €6,607,551.87 apartments + €489,361.96 locales/pools | Not the whole complex or a judicially fixed closing price |
| AC in AP record | €12,251,446.21 | Reported mortgage burden | Not an operative final allowance of every component |
| 4 Jun 2018 clarification, loan 1 | €11,887,314.33 at 17 May certificate | €7,792,421.02 principal + €1,015,788.65 ordinary + €3,079,104.66 default, with daily accrual to cap | Not final closing amount |
| 4 Jun 2018 clarification, loan 2 | €1,278,518.03 at 17 May certificate | €839,441 principal + €109,512.11 ordinary + €329,564.92 default, with daily accrual to cap | Not final closing amount |
| AP/2021 threshold, loan 1 | Up to €11,941,921.02 | €7,792,421.02 + €967,500 + default up to €3,182,000 | Competitive threshold subject to appellate reservation |
| AP/2021 threshold, loan 2 | €1,226,161.00 | €839,411 + €72,250 + €314,500 | Competitive threshold |
| Combined 2021/Protocol 457 total | €13,168,082.02 | Exact sum using the full €3,182,000 loan-1 default cap fixed for better-offer purposes after the court recorded it had been reached by 9 Jun 2020 | Does not alone prove the competitive threshold was the final allowed/compensable closing debt |
| Community-condition maximum | €1,145,798.29 | Amount a competing bidder was required to assume/pay under proposal | Not a Community credit judicially recognised in 2021 [S10] |
| Locales consideration | €400,000 | Separate 31-finca direct-sale branch | Not part of the mortgaged-finca debt consideration |
| Derived quantified third-party minimum | €14,713,880.31 plus unknown taxes/costs | €13,168,082.02 + €400,000 + €1,145,798.29 | Not a realised price or judicial surplus |
| third-party bidder headline offer | €14,800,000 plus stated costs/taxes | Nominal €86,119.69 excess before unknown/matching items | Not perfected; no appearance/bond; not adjudication value |

Protocol 870 contains no internal €30 arithmetic mismatch: €839,441.00 + €109,512.11 + €329,564.92 = €1,278,518.03 exactly. The €30 issue is a **cross-source** movement because the later AP/2021/Protocol-457 family uses €839,411.00. The underlying loan ledger and transition workpaper are required to determine whether that later movement is a correction, payment, rounding/clerical change or another source event. **B — cross-source inconsistency requiring explanation.**

## E3. Protocol 457 arithmetic test

The deed recites these six components, but its first-loan clause also expressly says daily default interest must be added until the €3,182,000 mortgage cap:

| Component | Amount |
|---|---:|
| Loan 1 principal | €7,792,421.02 |
| Loan 1 ordinary interest | €967,500.00 |
| Loan 1 default interest stated in the recital | €3,079,104.66 |
| Loan 2 principal | €839,411.00 |
| Loan 2 ordinary interest | €72,250.00 |
| Loan 2 default interest | €314,500.00 |
| **Arithmetic total of stated components** | **€13,065,186.68** |
| **Deed's stated consideration** | **€13,168,082.02** |
| **Difference** | **€102,895.34** |

The difference is exactly the gap between €3,079,104.66 and the first loan's €3,182,000 mortgage default-interest cap. The 25 January 2021 auto records that CAM supplied a document stating that the cap had been reached by 9 June 2020 and then operatively requires a better bidder to offer the full €3,182,000 component. Substituting that court-fixed competitive component makes the total exactly €13,168,082.02. [S08, S17]

**Arithmetic identity: PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT.** The €102,895.34 is not unexplained inflation: it exactly equals the step from €3,079,104.66 to the €3,182,000 cap. The open issue is legal function: S08 fixes what a third party had to offer to improve CAM's proposal; the missing underlying accrual certificate, final allowed-claim/payoff ledger and AC closing accounting are needed to prove why the same capped threshold became the exact debt extinguished by Protocol 457. **UNRESOLVED; B-ranked strong functional inconsistency requiring explanation**, not an arithmetic contradiction.

## E4. Locales cash ledger

| Event | Amount | Evidence | Unresolved control |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Protocol 2150, 28 Nov 2018 | €400,000 | Nominative cheque/carta-de-pago and possession recitals in notarial deed [S35] | Prior-authority defect, cheque image, independent debit/credit, ledger coding, taxes |
| LAJ formalisation direction, 12 Dec 2018 | €400,000 branch | Declared period closed and directed formalisation—fourteen days after deed [S32] | Publication computation; direction later set aside |
| AC quarterly report, 20 Dec 2018 | €400,000 | AC said cheque became effective, LPB collection account opened, specified AC remuneration paid, other estate creditors contacted; listed €239,743.79 estate claims [S33] | Exact purchaser debit/estate credit, payment-by-payment ledger, remaining cash, tax, later reversal/refund |
| Challenges/Registry, 9–10 Jan 2019 | — | Registry qualification identified obstacle; LAJ admitted challenges and made AC report available; joint LPB/Aweswell filing requested disclosure [S34–S35, S41] | Merits and complete title consequence were not decided by those acts |
| Non-convalidation, 24 Oct 2019; confirmed 12 May 2020 | — | Court set aside 12 Dec direction, refused validation and contemplated undoing if better offer authorised [S07, S27] | Whether consideration/title/possession was reversed or otherwise cured pending process |
| Definitive approval, 18 May 2021 | €400,000 branch re-approved | Judicial auto [S12] | Fresh deed/ratification, set-off vs cash, receipt, Registry changes |
| 21 Feb 2022 dación | €13,168,082.02 stated debt consideration | Protocol 457 [S17] | Separate locals branch should not be silently folded into this figure |

## E5. Dedicated surplus ledger

| Ledger field | Evidence located | Amount/status |
|---|---|---|
| ACTÚA objective market value of 159 mortgaged apartments | AC plan/AP record [S06, S29] | €6,607,551.87; LPB asked to use this figure, but it was not accepted as the transaction price |
| Debt threshold/consideration used for dación | 2021 orders/deed [S08, S12, S17] | €13,168,082.02 stated; arithmetic reconciled; threshold-to-final-allowed-debt and closing-account reconciliation **UNRESOLVED** |
| Separate locales value | Plan/approval [S03, S12] | €400,000 |
| Whole-complex valuations | Various repository/valuation materials | Not comparable without matching property perimeter/date/method |
| third-party bidder €14.8m proposal | Court record; bidder did not appear/deposit [S11–S13] | Not a realised price and cannot be used as the surplus minuend |
| Mathematical surplus on a valid matched basis | No final matched value and allowed-debt closing statement | **UNRESOLVED** |
| Court-ordered destination | Plan rules reserve any excess after special privilege to estate/creditors | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** in principle [S03] |
| Amount deposited/paid | No court-deposit or estate-bank proof located | **No primary evidence of payment has yet been identified** |
| Date / recipient | No reliable primary entry | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Insolvency-account treatment | No post-deed report/final accounts held | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |
| Later court treatment | No surplus-calculation/payment auto located | **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** |

It would be unsound to subtract €13.168 million from an appraisal of the whole hotel, or from the opening €21.603 million asset estimate, because those numbers do not share an established asset perimeter, valuation date or legal function. The correct surplus equation is:

> closing value/price of the **same transferred assets** − final allowed secured debt extinguished − only legally deductible transaction items = estate surplus.

Every input requires primary evidence.

---

# F. Judicial-knowledge timeline

This timeline answers what the court knew, or what had formally been put before it, without converting party submissions into accepted facts.

| Critical date | Ownership information before court | Possession/control information | Value/debt information | Objections/contradictions then visible | Knowledge classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 Jun 2012 | LPB application and preliminary assets; updated inventory ordered | LPB in possession/administration subject to intervention | Assets €21,603,513.82; liabilities €10,186,394.72 alleged/accepted for opening | Definitive inventory not yet before court | Opening facts **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; asset-by-asset title unresolved [S01] |
| 20 Jan 2017 | Owners' Community modification application and favourable AC report were before the court; personated parties made no allegations | — | Pre-declaration contingent ordinary claim added without its own amount; existing during-concurso estate claim unchanged | Later 2021 Community figures still require reconciliation to both streams | Operative act **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; underlying application, AC report and complete claim ledgers **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [S25] |
| 19 Dec 2017 | Liquidation expressly over LPB's patrimony | AC substituted for LPB administrators | Plan and quarterly reports required | No whole-complex title finding | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S02] |
| 8 Feb 2018 | PH122→CAM assignment put before court; asset title not transferred by this act | — | CAM recognised at unchanged €9,052,251.69 secured quantum plus unquantified contingent costs | LPB/Yaiza objections; court relied on favourable AC verification and refused assignment-based quantum change | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S26] |
| 15–18 Jan 2018 CAM offer / plan filing | Offer listed 159 asserted LPB fincas + 31 branch but duplicated 8579/omitted 8519; AC plan said LPB owned 159/220 + 31 and expressly excluded non-LPB fincas from the whole-complex appraisal | Offer granted no present possession/exploitation; plan said CAM would exploit only once ownership obtained | Offer: €7.065m 159-unit value / €12.251m asserted debt; plan: €9.776m whole complex / €7.096m LPB real estate; unsupported receivables/intangibles | Exact Annex I absent; €457,832.55 159-unit value difference and list correction already visible for later judicial control | Each source's content **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S29, S42] |
| 16 Apr–4 Jun 2018 | Enumerated 159 + 31 fincas; express exclusion of foreign property | No whole-hotel delivery ordered | Separate 16 Apr interest auto permitted growth within mortgage maxima; plan/4 Jun acts supplied competitive/deposit structure | LPB/Aweswell challenges; accrued euro amount and final classification not fixed | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S03–S04, S30] |
| 7–26 Jun 2018 | Same fragmented legal perimeter | Alleged 7 Jun physical-control event was being documented by parties; 26 Jun order only suspended realisation of listed apartments | Existing proposal figures | No order located authorising control/exploitation transition | Judicial receipt of every 7 Jun allegation needs docket proof; suspension content **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S05] |
| 28 Nov 2018–10 Jan 2019 | 31 locales/pools and asserted ob-rem links were before court; joint LPB/Aweswell disclosure request followed | Deed recited possession; AC reported sale/receipt/application; opposing parties said deed preceded authority | €400,000 cheque; AC reported it effective and initial fee payments; estate claims €239,743.79 | 12 Dec formalisation direction followed deed; challenges admitted; registry obstacle visible; no independent bank/final ledger | Each instrument/filing/LAJ act **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for its own proposition [S32–S35, S41] |
| 23 Jul 2019 | 159 LPB apartments identified | No possession adjudication | ACTÚA apartment value €6.607m; LPB asked for that figure or alternatively €9.052m; AC burden €12.251m; component thresholds | AP expressly reserved definitive default-interest amount/classification | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S06] |
| 24 Oct 2019 | 31-finca locals transaction specifically before court | 2018 deed already consummated according to court | €400k; new certificates ordered | Court knew prior authorisation route had not been completed; refused convalidation | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S07] |
| 24 Oct 2019–12 May 2020 | Aweswell's standing and AC efforts to exclude it/nullify participation were before court | By 12 May LPB also alleged demolition and denied access; court rejected those matters as late/new without deciding truth | Interest-cap finality route reiterated | Separate autos preserved Aweswell participation; allegations were procedurally, not factually, rejected | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for rulings/submissions [S27, S38–S39] |
| 24 Feb 2021 — extension branch | Same liquidation estate | No possession/control decision | No asset/debt figure decided | One-year extension granted due to liquidation difficulty and anticipated Bankia nullity actions | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S22] |
| 25 Jan–6 May 2021 — asset branch | Same 159 + 31 perimeter | Alleged works/access/control put before court in February; AC said no LPB possession delivered; CAM said it owned 54 units | €13.168m threshold, €400k, Community max | Mixed ownership and unidentified photographed units expressly recorded; Community “credit” not decided | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as submissions/rulings, not as proof of all underlying facts [S08–S10] |
| 12–18 May 2021 | Listed LPB assets; no third-party scope expansion | No new possession finding | third-party bidder €14.8m plus costs; bond €735,694.02; CAM conditions | third-party bidder failed to appear/deposit | Approval **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S11–S12] |
| By 2 Jul 2021; recorded 26 Jan 2022 | LPB put CAM public assertions of ownership of the hotel complex before the court | Public ownership/control representation raised | LPB questioned the attractiveness/process | Court later held it irrelevant to finca realisation; it did not validate the representation | Judicial receipt/knowledge **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S16] |
| 15 Oct 2021 | “fincas propiedad de la concursada” | — | Proposal unchanged | Court's two autos use inconsistent auction/licitation terminology | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** [S13–S14] |
| 27 Oct 2021 | Unknown detail in AC quarterly report 7425/2021 | Potentially material | Potentially material | Report itself absent | Court receipt **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; content **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [S15] |
| 25 Jan 2022 | AC said dación deed remained outstanding; treasury reported €2,472.58 | No deed/traditio yet according to AC | No surplus payment reported | Challenges said to remain unresolved | AC report/LAJ receipt **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; statement is not a judicial merits finding [S24] |
| 26 Jan–14 Feb 2022 | No evidenced asset-scope expansion | — | No final surplus/debt calculation located | Both clarifications resolved nomenclature/omissions; CAM requested testimony; LAJ recorded finality | Clarification originals/LAJ act **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; terminal finality **UNRESOLVED** because later review chain is docket-reported [S16, R01] |
| 21–26 Feb 2022 | Deed schedule and title recitals were to be reported to court within five days | Deed says free of tenants/occupants and transfers title | €13,168,082.02 stated; arithmetic reconciles through the full cap fixed in S08, but the threshold-to-final-closing-debt bridge remains unresolved | Whether timely filing occurred not shown | Deed **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; court receipt **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [S17] |
| 6 May 2022 | Finca 8751 shown 100% in CAM name by Protocol 457 | Registry title entry, not physical possession proof | — | Mortgage remains displayed under `CARGAS`; presentation also shown pending despacho | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for this informative sample; final cancellation certification absent [S23] |
| 9 Mar–28 Jul 2022 | No new asset-scope evidence located | — | — | Repository registers identify inadmission, two distinct 26 Apr decrees and continued review/nullity routing through submission to the judge | Docket existence **STRONGLY SUPPORTED** by repository registers; primary acts/terminal decision **DOCUMENT NOT YET LOCATED** [R01] |
| 28 Sep 2023 | Culpability record describes LPB/related control history | Rent/control evidence assessed for culpability | Passive €9,469,157.93; secured €9,052,251.69 | Figures differ in function from deed; appeal status unknown | First-instance findings **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**, finality unresolved [S20] |

### The 2018→2022 authority test

| Material transition | Judicial authority identified? | Answer |
|---|---|---|
| LPB administration → AC control in liquidation | Yes, 19 Dec 2017 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** |
| Publicity/competition for CAM proposal | Yes, 16 Apr/4 Jun/15 Jun 2018 and later republication | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**, subject to the 2019 correction/republication history |
| 7 Jun 2018 security/access/physical-control change | None located | **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED** |
| Pre-title works/demolition alleged in 2018–2021 | Allegations were before the court by 12 May 2020 and again in Feb 2021; relief was rejected without a merits finding | No positive authorisation found; factual/legal basis **UNRESOLVED** |
| Pre-title whole-hotel exploitation/economic benefit | None located in autos | **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED**; private agreements/accounts may be material |
| Suspension on 26 Jun 2018 | Yes, but only of listed realisation | **CONTRADICTED** if described as possession/exploitation authority |
| Definitive approval of CAM proposal | Yes, 18 May 2021 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** for enumerated LPB assets/conditions |
| Clarification / court-office finality treatment | 26 Jan/14 Feb 2022 | Clarification/testimony treatment **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; ultimate finality **UNRESOLVED** due to missing later review decisions |
| Notarial title transfer | 21 Feb 2022 | **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT** as executed instrument for its schedule |
| CAM→HNT segregation notice/approval | 30 Oct/16 Nov 2022 | Notice/approval **PROVEN BY PRIMARY DOCUMENT**; execution, registration and every underlying property right **UNRESOLVED** [S21] |

---

# G. Contradiction matrix and later-representation audit

## G1. High-value contradiction matrix

| Rank | Issue | Primary record | Conflicting fact/claim | Evidential significance / repair |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **A** | 26 Jan described as original adjudication | 18 May says “Aprobar de modo definitivo”; 26 Jan clarifies October [S12, S16] | Repository/site says adjudication on 26 Jan 2022 | Direct primary-document contradiction; correct all canonical data/pages |
| **A** | Original AC identity | 6 Jun 2012 appoints Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte [S01] | Internal digest names Fernando de León | Direct primary-document contradiction; correct docket/metadata |
| **A** | 24 Feb 2021 treated as one document | Two distinct same-date autos exist: one extends liquidation [S22], one resolves urgent measures [S09] | Historic files/timelines sometimes merge or substitute their contents | Direct document-identity error; index by date + function + page count/CSV |
| **A** | Other same-date autos merged or omitted | Separate 16 Apr 2018, 24 Oct 2019, 12 May 2020 and 6 May 2021 pairs have different applicants, sections and operative effects [S03, S07, S10, S27, S30, S38–S40] | Date-only indexes invite use of an interest/standing/nullity ruling as an asset ruling, or vice versa | Direct document-identity risk; every canonical entry needs date + function + page count/source |
| **A** | 2018 locals transaction judicially validated | 24 Oct 2019: “No haber lugar a convalidar” [S07] | Any description of Protocol 2150 as finally validated in 2018/2019 | Direct contradiction; later 2021 approval must be analysed separately |
| **A** | Whole complex included in LPB liquidation | Plan: “Se excluyen… bienes de propiedad ajena”; enumerated fincas [S03] | “Entire hotel/all accommodation units acquired in insolvency” | Direct scope contradiction unless separate owner-level transfers supplied |
| **A** | 2021 Community amount was judicially recognised debt | 6 May says court did not recognise or determine that credit [S10] | Later language calls €1.145m an allowed/recognised Community credit | Direct contradiction |
| **A** | 18 May outcome described as Aweswell win/no CAM approval | Auto definitively approves CAM [S12] | Stale internal decision digest says otherwise | Correct outcome and downstream references |
| **A** | CAM recognition auto dated 15 Feb | Primary body says 8 Feb; signed by judge 9 Feb and LAJ 14 Feb [S26] | Repository correction register/file metadata says ruling dated 15 Feb | Direct primary-document/date contradiction; body date controls absent a distinct 15 Feb act |
| **B** | Better-offer threshold vs closing debt | S08 fixes full default cap for a third-party better offer; deed uses that exact capped total as consideration [S08, S17] | Later descriptions call €13.168m a definitively recognised/allowed debt | Arithmetic reconciles; underlying accrual certificate, claim-classification bridge, final payoff and AC ledger required |
| **B** | 2018-to-2021 loan-2 principal movement | Protocol 870 uses €839,441 and sums exactly to €1,278,518.03; later AP/2021/Protocol-457 sources use €839,411 | €30 cross-source difference, not an internal Protocol-870 error | Source-system ledger and transition workpaper required |
| **B** | AP recital vs definitive-text total | AP/LPB recital says €9,052,877.88 [S06]; 8 Feb operative components total €9,052,251.69 [S26] | €626.19 unexplained difference | Attribute each number to its source; certified appellate/definitive texts and calculation required |
| **B** | Annex II finca-list defect | Original second branch duplicates 8579—already in first branch—and omits 8519 [S42] | Plan/orders/deed use 8508–8536 range | Preserve the original defect; obtain formal correction/explanation and verify every deed/Registry entry |
| **B** | 159-unit appraisal mismatch | Annex II uses €7,065,384.42 [S42]; plan/AP uses €6,607,551.87 [S29/S06] | €457,832.55 difference for apparently the same 159-unit perimeter | Exact filed ACTÚA Annex I, valuation dates/schedules and methodology required |
| **B** | Possession vs legal title | 24 Feb records AC said no LPB possession delivered; approval/title later [S09, S12, S17] | Material control/works/ownership representations from 2018–2021 | Identify judicial/private authority, operator contracts and accounts |
| **B** | 15 Oct procedure nomenclature | One auto: improvement process, not formal auction; other: auction held [S13–S14] | Later actors select whichever label assists narrative | January original resolves it as a licitation appearance, not auction; nomenclature cannot enlarge rights [S16] |
| **B** | 26 Jan vs 22 Jan in deed | Both original autos, deed p.10 and LAJ act say 26 Jan; deed p.11 says 22 Jan [S16–S17] | Internal notarial inconsistency | Judicial originals control; correct metadata and inspect testimony |
| **B** | 2020–2021 ownership marketing vs title | Before definitive approval/deed, no whole-hotel title order; CAM told court it owned 54 units [S09] | RICPE: “hemos hecho la compra”, “producto comprado en propiedad”, 220 apartments/free of charges | Attribute as marketing representation; verify exact legal/property basis |
| **B** | 2018 locales authority sequence | Protocol 2150 was executed 28 Nov; LAJ formalisation direction came 12 Dec; challenges followed; court later set that act aside and refused convalidation [S07, S32–S35] | AC's 20 Dec report described the sale as within the plan and the cheque effective | Court's later authority ruling controls; distinguish AC receipt/application evidence from legal convalidation and obtain cure/final ledger |
| **B** | 2018 locales vs 2022 treatment | 2019 non-convalidation; 2021 approval of branch; Protocol 457 omits the 31 fincas [S07, S12, S17] | Later narratives merge all assets into 2022 dación | Separate new conveyance/ratification/payment/registry chain required |
| **B** | Insolvency credit vs deed consideration | 8 Feb auto says assignment changes holder, not €9.052m definitive-text quantum; 2023 judgment repeats €9.052m, while deed uses €13.168m [S17, S20, S26] | Later descriptions call full deed figure “judicially recognised credit” | Reconcile post-concurso interest/classification, mortgage cap, payoff and accounting; figures have different functions |
| **B** | CAM→HNT “economic unit” vs property perimeter | BORME announces approval of an in-block segregation [S21] | Later shorthand treats the notice as proof of consummated title to the entire physical complex | Notice/approval proven; execution, registration and underlying property/contract schedules required |
| **B** | Asset deal vs `unidad productiva` shorthand | Annex II expressly excludes business/labour/social-security succession and grants no present operation [S42] | Later descriptions call the 2018 proposal acquisition of a hotel business/productive unit | Distinguish real-estate `unidad de explotación` reasoning from an operative business transfer; obtain contracts/licences/employment schedules |
| **C** | Sobrante | Plan reserves surplus; no matched closing ledger | Assertions of payment or non-payment | Court deposit, bank ledger, AC accounts and conclusion required |
| **C** | Matkator physical unit mapping | Registry finca identities stable; internal unit-number mappings conflict | Different apartment numbers assigned to 8584/8588 | Division-horizontal/cadastral/architect crosswalk required |
| **C** | Extension chain after 24 Feb 2021 | 4 Feb 2020 extension is recited and 24 Feb 2021 extension is held | Any extension after 24 Feb 2022/conclusion not identified | Certified docket and later acts required |
| **C** | Post-deed registration/cancellation | Deed requests/anticipates steps | Later registry/professional assertions | Certified historical notes and mandamientos for every finca required |
| **D** | Deliberate manipulation or collusion | No primary document establishes intent | Repeated allegations in correspondence | Hypothesis only; do not publish as fact |

Ranking: **A** direct primary-document contradiction; **B** strong inconsistency requiring explanation; **C** unresolved evidential gap; **D** hypothesis only.

## G2. Primary auto vs later representation

| Primary auto says | Later actor says | Consistent? | Difference | Evidential significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LPB patrimony only; foreign property excluded [S02–S03] | CAM/HNT/RICPE materials use “hotel”, “entire hotel”, “all accommodation units” | No, if used as title statement | Physical/economic shorthand erases Registry ownership boundaries | Require asset schedule and attribute marketing language |
| 159 enumerated apartments + 31 separate locals/pools [S03, S12] | RICPE material refers to 220 apartments/product bought in ownership | Not established | Different universe and pre-title timing | Preserve source/date; do not infer judicial approval |
| Definitive approval 18 May 2021 [S12] | Site says court adjudicated 26 Jan 2022 | No | Confuses clarification with approval | Correct site and data files |
| 26 Jan clarified “licitation… not auction” [S16] | Some pleadings/pages call it judicial auction | Partly/inconsistently | Court's own October language also conflicted | Use neutral “better-offer licitation process” |
| No 2018 control/exploitation order identified [S05, S09] | CAM/private actors describe ownership/product/control in 2019–2021 | Not judicially supported | Legal title and practical control conflated | Identify private, community and administrative authority |
| Annex II required future deeds, excluded business succession and granted no present possession/exploitation [S42] | Later language describes acquisition of a hotel/unit productive/business in the insolvency | Not established by the offer | Real-estate offer/valuation shorthand is converted into a business transfer | Require operative contracts, employees, licences, goodwill and income schedules |
| Court refused to convalidate 2018 locales deed [S07] | Later summaries treat locals as cleanly acquired under plan | Incomplete | Later 2021 proposal approval does not prove all implementation facts | Obtain fresh deed/ratification, bank and Registry trail |
| Community figure not recognised as credit [S10] | AC/CAM/later text may call it debt/credit | No if stated as judicial allowance | Bid condition vs allowed claim | Qualify terminology |
| Deed says scheduled fincas transferred, free of charges/occupants, and requests cancellation [S17] | Later “free of charges” claims | Not established by deed alone | Finca 8751 note of 6 May records title but still lists mortgage under `CARGAS` [S23] | Later art. 225 certification and cancellation entry needed |
| Plan reserves third-party rights and surplus [S03] | Later deed/professional assertion treats closing as complete | Not enough | Performance evidence missing | Require court filing, account and receipt |
| BORME says CAM segregated an economic unit to HNT [S21] | HNT/Canarian Hospitality presented as consolidated owner/operator of whole hotel | Only partly | Corporate succession does not cure CAM's missing title to an asset | Test each asset/right in segregation project |
| No examined auto transfers a hotel licence, tourism registration or third-party title [S03, S12] | Ayuntamiento, Cabildo or architects may describe one hotel establishment, a works perimeter or an operating unit | Not a property-law match | Administrative/technical perimeter and Registry ownership answer different questions | Obtain each filed application, annexed title, licence resolution and unit schedule; do not use professional shorthand as conveyance proof |
| The judicial scope is the enumerated LPB property [S03, S12] | RICPE/RPE or tax materials may describe a consolidated acquisition, 159/220 units or the entire resort | Not established as title | Fiscal/investment representation may rely on economic control rather than legal ownership | Obtain the exact submissions, title pack, valuation perimeter and authority response; attribute every statement |
| The BORME notice proves the announced CAM→HNT corporate step, not current operation by a separate manager [S21] | Canarian Hospitality is later presented as owner, operator, manager or brand perimeter | **UNRESOLVED** | Those roles are legally distinct and the operative contract/licence is missing | Obtain HNT–Canarian Hospitality agreements, licence-holder history, asset schedule and Registry evidence |

## G3. Evidentially safe formulations

- **Owner:** use only with a specified finca/right and date supported by Registry/notarial evidence; otherwise “described itself as owner” or “operator”.
- **Consolidated owner:** avoid unless the consolidation instrument and every relevant title are identified.
- **Acquired in insolvency:** safe only for the enumerated LPB assets and with the 18 May→15 Oct→January clarification→21 February implementation sequence.
- **Free of charges:** attribute to the deed or a dated Registry certification; do not state globally.
- **Unidad productiva/economic unit:** describe as proposal/corporate shorthand unless the asset, contract, employee, licence and liability schedule is held.
- **159 apartments:** specify “the 159 LPB registered fincas listed in the approved plan”, not “all apartments in Sun Park”.
- **All accommodation units / entire hotel:** presently unsupported as a property-law proposition.

---

# H. Missing critical-document register

## P0 — potentially outcome-determinative

| Missing document | Probable date | Probable holder | Why it matters | Best retrieval route |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Certified complete court expediente/docket index, Sections 1, 5, 6 and incidents | 2012–conclusion | Juzgado Mercantil nº 1 / procuradora | Establishes every filing, service, appeal, finality and missing act; prevents false negative conclusions | Court file via procuradora/lawyer; request electronic event log plus sealed copies |
| Original updated inventory and creditor list ordered 6 Jun 2012, later definitive/modification texts and all finca schedules | 2012–2017 | Court / AC / former lawyers | Determines what LPB estate actually contained and whether third-party assets were mislisted | Court file and AC; compare with Registry certifications |
| Certified/stamped 18 Jan 2018 plan filing set: controlled core body, Annex II, exact filed ACTÚA Annex I, definitive inventory/title schedules, and Annex II's referenced authority deed/reasonable-value appraisal | 15–18 Jan 2018 onward | Court / AC / CAM / parties | Core plan and offer are located; missing attachments must authenticate valuations, authority, the €457,832.55 appraisal difference and every ownership/list line including 8579/8519 | Court file / AC / CAM / procuradora; recover exact Annex I/offer attachments |
| 12 Jan 2018 providencia requiring CAM to exhibit the complete assignment deed, plus compliance filing and court treatment | Jan–Feb 2018 | Court / CAM / AC | Docket lead may test the 8 Feb auto's stated reliance on AC verification despite incomplete judicial production and identify the exact Protocol 2248 material before the court | Court file / CAM / procuradora [R01 lead] |
| Complete 2022 testimony/finality challenge pack: 11/14 Feb acts, 9 Mar auto, the two distinct 26 Apr decrees, 16 Jun providencia(s), both 20 Jun acts, 13 Jul auto, 14/21/26/27/28 Jul LAJ routing and terminal review decision | Feb–Jul 2022 onward | Court / CAM / Aweswell lawyers / notary | The 26 Jan originals and 14 Feb act are held, but later docket leads show the review chain continued; this pack establishes service, enforceability, what the notary/Registry received and ultimate finality | Court file / procuradora / notary [R01] |
| Stamped court filing/receipt of Protocol 457 within five natural days and any judicial approval/acknowledgment | 21–28 Feb 2022 | Court / AC / notary | Tests express reporting performance and what court knew after closing | Court docket / AC outbound register |
| Cancellation order/mandamiento and property-by-property Registry presentation/entry pack | 2022 onward | Court / Land Registry of Tías / notary / CAM/HNT | Tests charges, effective title and scope for each finca | Certified Registry histories and court file |
| Full PH122→CAM assignment deed (Protocol 2248), annexes, price/payment proof, AC verification report and appeal/finality record for the 8 Feb auto | 2017–2018 | Notary / CAM / PH122 / Haya / court / AC | Holder substitution and preserved quantum are proven; these missing items test assignment economics, schedule completeness and finality | Notary copy via entitled party; court file; creditor/servicer |
| Protocols 869/870 source-system workpapers, the €839,441→€839,411 transition, CAM's 9 Jun 2020 cap-accrual support, and final interest/default-cost payoff/compensation statement used on 21 Feb 2022 | 2018–closing date | CAM/Haya/AC/notary/court | Explains the €30 cross-source movement, verifies the day-by-day route to the cap and proves whether the €13.168m better-offer threshold was the final compensable debt | Creditor/servicer, AC, notarial annexes, court file |
| Sobrante calculation, court deposit receipt or estate bank payment proof | 2021–conclusion | Court deposit account / AC / estate bank / CAM | Outcome-determinative for estate/creditors | Court, AC accounting, bank, creditor |
| Complete post-deed AC quarterly/final reports, rendition of accounts and conclusion auto/decree | 2022–conclusion | Court / AC | Shows performance, receipts, distributions, residual assets and judicial closure | Court file / AC |
| Certified historic Registry records for all 159 + 31 assets and Matkator/third-party sample universe, expressly including 8497, 8498, 8584, 8587 and 8588 | 2017–present | Registro de la Propiedad de Tías | Proves owner, charges, presentations, cancellations and later transfers; separates working title leads from certified ownership | Registry certification, not only notas simples |
| Protocol 2150 independent payment/reversal/reimplementation pack: cheque image, bank debit/credit, complete estate ledger, tax, post-ruling cure/fresh deed/ratification and Registry entries | 28 Nov 2018–2022 | Notary / AC / bank / CAM / Registry | Deed and AC report prove instrument/receipt representation and initial application; these records resolve independent cash proof and legal/title treatment after non-convalidation | Notary, AC, bank, Registry, tax authority |
| Division-horizontal title and authoritative finca↔physical-unit crosswalk | Original plus amendments | Registry / notary / architect / Community | Resolves contradictory 8584/8588 apartment mappings and physical interference claims | Registry certification, cadastral file, architect/Community records |
| Underlying CAM→HNT segregation project with full asset/passive/contracts/licences schedule | 30 Oct 2022 | Commercial Registry / notary / CAM / HNT | Tests what actually passed by universal succession | Mercantile Registry/notary/corporate records |

## P1 — major corroborative value

| Missing document | Probable date | Probable holder | Why it matters | Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original 4 Feb 2020 extension providencia, 24 Feb 2021 extension application/service/finality and any extension after 24 Feb 2022 | 2020 onward | Court / AC | The 2020 one-year effect is recited and the 2021 extension auto is held; originals complete the authority/timetable through conclusion | Court / AC |
| Underlying AC quarterly report 7425/2021 | Filed before 27 Oct 2021 | Court / AC | Shows what court knew immediately before closing | Court / AC |
| Reported 8 Jul 2021 providencia requiring a detailed AC liquidation report and warning of possible responsibility, plus response | Jul 2021 | Court / AC | Tests whether the court demanded and received a complete account of possession, works, proceeds, debt and outstanding steps before deed | Court / AC / procuradora [R01 lead] |
| Reported 24 Jul 2018 estate-insufficiency/mass-payment act and 10 Jan 2019 auto dismissing CAM reposición | Jul 2018–Jan 2019 | Court / AC / CAM | Illuminates who could be paid from the €400,000 branch and AC/CAM positions on estate liquidity | Court file [R01 lead] |
| Reported 7 May 2019 decree resolving challenges to the 12 Dec act | May 2019 | Court / parties | Needed to reconcile the intermediate LAJ route with the later judge-signed 24 Oct non-convalidation ruling | Court file / procuradoras [R01 lead] |
| Reported 13 Jan 2021 preservation providencia and underlying application/service | Jan 2021 | Court / Aweswell / AC / CAM | The 24 Feb auto proves later treatment; the original defines exactly what preservation relief was requested/temporarily directed | Court file / parties [R01 lead] |
| Full SAREB→PH122 instrument/schedule and Bankia→SAREB asset schedule | 2012–2015 | SAREB / PH122 / notary / court | Corroborates precise loan/charge chain | Creditor/notary/court |
| Haya servicing ledger and balance certificates at every judicial cut-off | 2017–2022 | Haya / PH122 / CAM | Reconciles principal, ordinary/default interest and costs | Creditor/servicer |
| Court-filed/executed third-party bidder offer, filing receipt, authority/funds evidence, service, appearance record, bond demand and non-deposit proof | Feb–May 2021 | Court / third-party bidder / parties | Native proposed text is located but contains placeholders/blank execution blocks; this pack tests binding status, comparability and the complete €14.8m competition process | Court file / third-party bidder / AC |
| Community resolutions, access/security contracts and operator agreements | 2018–2022 | Community/CEXP/CAM/operators | Identifies private authority for possession, access, works and exploitation | Community books, contracts, litigation disclosure |
| Bank, tax and accounting records for Sun Park income/works 2018–2022 | 2018–2022 | Operators/CAM/HNT/AC/tax authorities | Traces economic benefit and estate/third-party income | Court disclosure, tax/municipal files, accounts |
| Ayuntamiento de Yaiza/Cabildo licensing, works and inspection files | 2018–present | Authorities | Tests who claimed/held operator/works authority and what assets were described | Administrative file requests |
| RICPE/RPE investor submissions, technical appendices and source-title pack | 2019–2021 | Promoters/advisers/authorities | Compares investor ownership representations with title then held | Regulator/tax file, promoter disclosure |
| Full appeal/finality record for Sentencia 163/2023 | 2023 onward | Court/AP | Prevents treating a first-instance civil-insolvency judgment as final/criminal | Court/AP file |

## P2 — useful completeness

| Missing document | Probable date/holder | Why it matters | Route |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certified copies of all BORME/Mercantile Registry corporate changes | 2012–present / Mercantile Registry | Entity names, transformations, CAM/HNT succession and administrators | Registry certification |
| Complete architect/GESVALT/MYND schedules and revisions | 2018–present / professionals | Unit numbering, works scope, valuation perimeter | Professional files with metadata |
| Cadastral histories and graphical validation | Relevant years / Cadastre | Corroborates physical/registry identity, not title alone | Cadastre/municipality |
| Publicity notices, newspaper placements and service returns for every better-offer round | 2018–2021 / court/LAJ/media | Completes procedural notice audit | Court/media archive |
| Insurance, utilities, booking-platform and supplier contracts | 2018–2022 / operators | Corroborates practical possession/exploitation and dates | Contract disclosure |

---

# I. Website and repository update recommendations

## I1. Statements already materially supported

The following themes in the current Por Derecho site are generally aligned with the primary record when expressed cautiously:

- the distinction between the judicial approval sequence and the later notarial deed;
- the warning that the deed is not self-proving evidence of the legally allowed credit or every condition;
- the separate, extraconcursal Matkator perimeter;
- the chronology of material control beginning in June 2018 as a factual issue distinct from title;
- the need to separate the €400,000 locales branch from the 159-finca dación;
- the five-natural-day reporting requirement stated in Protocol 457;
- the need for a property-by-property Registry audit.

## I2. Corrections and qualifications required

| Priority | Current repository/site issue | Required correction |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Spanish and English RICPE pages say the court authorised/adjudicated on 26 Jan 2022 (`es/ric-private-equity-sun-park/index.html`, English counterpart, around line 339) | Replace with definitive approval 18 May 2021, confirmation 15 Oct, clarification 26 Jan 2022, deed 21 Feb 2022 |
| P0 | Home page says the judge broadly “recognised/cured” a contradiction on 26 Jan | Replace with the precise holdings of the two now-controlled clarification autos; neither adjudicated assets or validated earlier ownership claims |
| P0 | Canonical JS/data indexes repeat the wrong January characterisation (`assets/sun-park-7june-convergence-20260817.js`, `assets/site-base-1728fcf.js`, `archive/judicial-intelligence/decisions.jsonl`) | Correct structured data first so the error does not regenerate across pages |
| P0 | Internal digest identifies Fernando de León as original AC | Replace with Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte from 6 Jun 2012 auto |
| P0 | Internal decision digest states the 18 May outcome incorrectly | Replace with exact operative approval to CAM and preserve party/outcome distinction |
| P0 | Repository correction register labels the CAM-recognition ruling 15 Feb 2018 | Correct to body date 8 Feb 2018; separately record signatures 9/14 Feb and misleading filename, unless a distinct 15 Feb act is produced |
| P0 | Date-only timeline entries merge same-date rulings | Create distinct entries for the pairs on 16 Apr 2018, 24 Oct 2019, 12 May 2020, 24 Feb 2021 and 6 May 2021, each with function/page count/source [S03, S07, S09–S10, S22, S27, S30, S38–S40] |
| P0 | Debt narrative stops at the 8 Feb €9.052m holder-substitution ruling or calls €13.168m automatically recognised | Add the separate 16 Apr interest-cap clarification; distinguish authority to accrue within caps from proof of actual accrual, classification and final payoff [S26, S30] |
| P0 | Any page says there is no primary evidence the €400,000 cheque was received/effective or applied | Correct: Protocol 2150 records cheque/receipt and the 20 Dec AC report says it became effective and identified initial fee applications. Qualify that independent bank records, final ledger and post-non-convalidation treatment remain missing [S33–S35] |
| P0 | Any document index still says the full liquidation plan is missing | Mark the 15-page core plan controlled, Annex II separately controlled, and only the exact filed Annex I/authority-appraisal attachments and definitive inventory set outstanding [S29, S42] |
| P0 | Annex II is indexed as 15 Feb and its lists/values are normalised silently | Correct face date to 15 Jan; preserve the duplicated 8579/omitted 8519 defect, the €7.065m vs €6.607m 159-unit appraisal difference, and later corrected judicial scope [S42] |
| P1 | Adjudication page says originals of 18 May/15 Oct/26 Jan are missing | Update: complete copies of all these autos are recovered; only service/testimony and downstream implementation records remain missing |
| P1 | “La competencia fue real” is categorical | Use “a competing offer and judicial licitation mechanism are documented; comparability, notice and full procedural record remain under review” |
| P1 | “transferencia dominical” used as if deed automatically proves completed Registry effect | Distinguish executed deed, court reporting, cancellation mandamiento and Registry entry |
| P1 | RICPE page treats the claimed 54/190/18 split as confirmed | Attribute to CAM/RICPE pleading/marketing unless certified Registry audit supports the figures |
| P1 | ES/EN RICPE page concludes the 11 Nov 2020 whole-ownership/unencumbered statements were “materially false when spoken” (English around line 440) | Use: “not reconciled with, and materially inconsistent with, the contemporaneous title/judicial record to the extent the statement described the whole complex”; reserve speaker knowledge, intent and legal falsity |
| P1 | AC/title page says 159 passed to CAM against €13.168m “after real competition” | Attribute the transfer to Protocol 457; state the cap arithmetic is reconciled but the threshold-to-final-debt/accounting bridge remains open, plus third-party bidder non-appearance/deposit facts |
| P1 | Any page treats the 14 Feb 2022 finality statement as the last procedural event | State that the 14 Feb LAJ act proves then-current court-office treatment only; repository docket leads identify later challenge/review steps through at least 28 Jul, whose primaries/terminal decision remain missing [R01] |
| P1 | AP/definitive-text numbers are quoted interchangeably | Attribute €9,052,877.88 to the AP/LPB recital and €9,052,251.69 to the 8 Feb operative components; flag the €626.19 gap [S06, S26] |
| P1 | BORME notice is used as proof the CAM→HNT segregation was consummated for every asset | Say the notice/approval is proven; execution, registration and the full asset/passive/contracts/licences perimeter remain unresolved [S21] |
| P1 | LAJ attribution on the 26 Jun page may attach Eduardo Rebollo to the wrong act | Verify from each signed primary copy; he is shown on 19 Dec 2017 notification, while later LAJ acts include Águeda Reyes Almeida |
| P2 | Repository calls Sentencia 163/2023 an `AUTO_CONCURSO_CULPOSO` | Correct metadata: first-instance civil-insolvency culpability judgment; appeal status unresolved |

## I3. Dedicated page proposal

**Title:** `Concurso 36/2012 — What the Court Actually Ordered`

**Organising rule:**

> Primary judicial text → legal function → condition/reservation → subsequent event → evidence of compliance/non-compliance → unresolved question

Recommended modules:

1. **Scope gate:** LPB estate / foreign-property exclusion / controlled finca list.
2. **Order reader:** facsimile, exact Spanish operative quotation, faithful English translation, document completeness and hash.
3. **Function labels:** authorisation, approval, acknowledgment, conditional approval, procedural direction, recital, assumption and final disposition shown distinctly.
4. **18 May–21 February chain:** visual sequence with direct document links and the January correction.
5. **Condition tracker:** finality, ownership, debt, €400k branch, costs/taxes, court report, cancellation, Registry, surplus and accounts.
6. **Asset matrix:** 159 LPB fincas, 31 locals/pools, Matkator samples and unverified third-party universe.
7. **Debt/value calculator:** figures by function, including the €626.19 definitive-text recital gap, €457,832.55 appraisal gap, €30 subtotal issue and exact €102,895.34 cap identity; separate arithmetic from the unresolved threshold-to-closing-debt bridge.
8. **Control gap:** each 2018–2022 factual transition paired with the order authorising it or the label **NO PRIMARY JUDICIAL AUTHORISATION YET IDENTIFIED**.
9. **Corrections log:** transparently record historic site statements displaced by a primary auto.
10. **Missing record requests:** P0/P1/P2 with retrieval status.

The page should never say that failure to locate a document proves it never existed. It should provide the cut-off date and let the reader distinguish source, statement and inference.

## I4. Publication boundary

**Publish, with proportionate redaction:** the critical autos, LAJ acts, appellate auto, core plan, a redacted Annex II offer, public BORME notice, a redacted operative extract of Protocol 457, the asset list, translations, hashes and correction log.

**Repository-only / controlled access:** full deeds/offer copies containing personal identifiers/signatures, the unredacted AC report containing bank data, complete Registry notes with personal data, bank/cheque/account records, non-public assignment economics, tax files, investor personal data, access/security logs, private emails, medical/family data, and unredacted pleadings naming non-public individuals. Publish derived tables only after source redaction and legal review.

## I5. Non-defamatory editorial rules

- Lead with exact primary text and role/date, not motives.
- Say “the record does not show” or “not identified in the evidence examined”, not “concealed” or “never happened”.
- Attribute claims: “CAM stated…”, “the AC reported…”, “the court recorded but did not decide…”.
- Treat errors and inconsistencies separately from intent.
- Do not label the 2023 judgment criminal or final without the appeal record.
- Keep alleged June 2018 acts and damages expressly identified as allegations unless independently proved.

---

# J. Top 10 questions the primary autos now require somebody to answer

1. **Where are the certified updated inventory, exact filed ACTÚA Annex I and title schedules, and how do they resolve Annex II's duplicated 8579/omitted 8519 and €7.065m-versus-€6.607m valuation differences?**
2. **What document, if any, authorised the 7 June 2018 change in keys, security, access, possession, works, exploitation or income before CAM acquired the 159 fincas?**
3. **How can fincas 8584, 8588 or any other Matkator/third-party unit enter the later CAM/HNT operational perimeter when the plan excluded foreign property and the judicial list omits them?**
4. **Why were the two 26 January clarification autos repeatedly described as an “adjudication”; who was served; what testimony reached the notary/Registry; and what terminal ruling resolved the review chain still docket-reported through 28 July 2022?**
5. **Where are CAM's underlying day-by-day cap calculation and the final payoff/AC ledger proving that the €13,168,082.02 better-offer threshold became the exact compensable debt extinguished at closing?**
6. **After the AC reported the €400,000 cheque effective and initially applied, what happened asset by asset and euro by euro following the 24 October 2019 refusal to convalidate Protocol 2150: reversal/refund, legal cure or fresh conveyance, final estate ledger, tax and Registry entry?**
7. **Was Protocol 457 reported to the court within five natural days, and where are the receipt, later court response, cancellation mandamiento and complete Registry entries?**
8. **What matched closing valuation and allowed secured-debt ledger was used to calculate any sobrante, and where is the payment/consignation and estate-account entry?**
9. **What did AC report 7425/2021 and the post-deed/final accounts tell the court about third-party assets, possession, proceeds, debt extinction, charges and conclusion?**
10. **Exactly which real property, contracts, licences, employees, receivables, liabilities and third-party-use rights passed from CAM to HNT under the October 2022 segregation, and what is Canarian Hospitality's present legal role for each?**

---

# Overall chain finding

The evidence establishes a substantial but discontinuous legal chain:

> LPB declaration → AC-controlled liquidation of LPB's patrimony → CAM offer/AC plan for enumerated LPB assets → appeal-limited debt thresholds → judicial refusal to convalidate the prematurely consummated locales branch → republicised better-offer process → definitive CAM approval on 18 May 2021 → confirmation/clarification and court-office finality treatment → Protocol 457 dación of scheduled mortgaged LPB fincas → later CAM/HNT segregation notice.

It does **not** yet establish an unbroken chain for the physical complex as a whole. The principal breaks are ownership of third-party fincas; the authority and economics of 2018–2021 possession/exploitation; Annex II's finca/value defects; locales performance after non-convalidation; the final compensable debt and its accounting treatment, including €626.19 and €30 source inconsistencies; the sobrante; terminal 2022 review/finality; post-deed court/Registry implementation; and execution/perimeter of the CAM→HNT segregation.

Those breaks are capable of proof or disproof. The required repairs are concrete documents: the certified court event log and originals, inventory/plan schedules, creditor assignment/payoff file, closing and estate bank ledgers, court-deposit evidence, Registry histories, operator/Community contracts, licence files, and the HNT segregation project. Until obtained, the evidentially correct conclusion is **UNRESOLVED**, not accusation.

---

# Custody and reproducibility note

The controlled source key above records stable Drive/Gmail identifiers and available hashes. Separate working scans were produced for the repository and connected-source searches. A machine-readable evidence index accompanies this report and records document date, function, source, completeness, page count, evidential status and priority. The cut-off date should be displayed on any published derivative; later recovered originals must supersede quotations from party filings or historic repository digests.