{ "control_id": "C36-PLAN-JUDGE-LAJ-20260830", "title": "Concurso 36/2012 — liquidation-plan implementation / judge / LAJ forensic compliance matrix", "generated": "2026-08-30", "governance": { "minimum": "The located record proves a serious and repeatedly preserved controversy over whether material liquidation acts fully conformed to the approved liquidation plan and applicable review route.", "forensic": "Each event must be compared plan-term-by-plan-term against the judicial and LAJ acts actually used, their stated legal basis, objections, responses, review, finality and implementation.", "criminal_allegation": "The affected-party theory that omissions or commissions may have obscured, normalised or impeded review of an alleged divergence from the plan is retained for investigation. Deliberate concealment, cover-up, prevarication or LAJ participation is not established merely by an adverse decision, omission, inadmission or missing record and requires actor-specific proof of knowledge, purpose, illegality/arbitrariness, causal contribution and statutory elements.", "absence_rule": "NOT LOCATED IN THE CONTROLLED CORPUS is not DID NOT EXIST." }, "events": [ { "id": "C36-PLAN-0001", "date": "2018-04-16", "event": "Liquidation-plan approval comparator", "plan_term": "Approved liquidation plan / judicial approval package is the controlling baseline. Later LPB filings quote the plan as requiring BOE Auction Portal mechanics, a twenty-natural-day bid period and specified treatment where competing improvements exist. The exact plan clauses must remain linked to the primary plan source rather than reconstructed only from later pleadings.", "judge_act": "Auto approving/validating the liquidation plan — primary baseline to reconcile.", "laj_act": "Service/index/implementation acts to identify from certified docket.", "objection": null, "minimum_proposition": "A binding judicially approved liquidation baseline existed before the later contested implementation sequence.", "allegation": "Later implementation departed from material approved-plan safeguards.", "intent_evidence": "None inferred from the approval event itself.", "innocent_explanation": "Later lawfully authorised implementation or modification may explain a different mechanism if the required source chain exists.", "gap": "Certified full plan, annexes, finality and any subsequent formal modification package must be reconciled clause-by-clause." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0002", "date": "2019-10-24", "event": "Interest / rival-bid threshold implementation order", "plan_term": "Use the approved plan and the AP 23-Jul-2019 directions as the baseline for rival-bid conditions and later liquidation of default interest.", "judge_act": "Auto stated that a third party need assume payment of default interest without fixing it in advance, with later liquidation; it also set a maximum certification mechanism for the rival-bid comparison.", "laj_act": "Notification/service and downstream filing routing to reconcile.", "objection": "Later LPB filings challenged how maximum figures and certifications were used.", "minimum_proposition": "The court treated the figure used to test a rival bid as distinct from a definitive liquidation of the debt.", "allegation": "Later use of maxima may have overvalued CAM's proposal and raised the rival-bid threshold.", "intent_evidence": "Requires later actor-specific evidence; no intent inferred from this order alone.", "innocent_explanation": "The court may have been implementing the AP maximum-scenario guidance rather than modifying the admitted credit.", "gap": "Full 2019 appeal/finality and later exact reconciliation to the 2021 threshold." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0003", "date": "2020-12-01", "event": "Two LPB objections formally enter Sección 5", "plan_term": "Inputs used in implementation should be procedurally settled and tested before they become operative in rival-bid/adjudication mechanics.", "judge_act": "No merits response to these two filings has yet been isolated before the later challenged 25-Jan-2021 step.", "laj_act": "LexNET receipt establishes entry into the court channel; docket routing/treatment to reconcile.", "objection": "CAM-interest filing LexNET 1202010372434856; AC/Community filing LexNET 1202010372438581.", "minimum_proposition": "LPB formally put both the CAM-interest and AC/Community calculation objections before the court before the Jan-2021 authorisation/publicity sequence.", "allegation": "The filings were later ignored or treated as if absent.", "intent_evidence": "The later reposición expressly alleges omission; that allegation proves notice/complaint, not deliberate concealment.", "innocent_explanation": "The court may have considered the objections immaterial, premature, implicitly resolved or procedurally misplaced; the exact docket treatment must be obtained.", "gap": "Signed response, docket annotation, internal routing and service/finality chain." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0004", "date": "2021-01-25", "event": "Authorisation/publicity step for CAM proposal", "plan_term": "Implementation must be reconciled with the plan's sale/competition safeguards and with unresolved calculation objections already before the court.", "judge_act": "Auto authorised/publicised the CAM proposal subject to the then-used improvement threshold.", "laj_act": "Publicity/service/processing mechanics to identify separately.", "objection": "Luis Miguel López reposición alleged the two 1-Dec-2020 filings were not addressed and invoked incongruencia omisiva; it also attacked interest and Community inputs.", "minimum_proposition": "A formal objection existed to both the calculation basis and the court's non-response to earlier filings.", "allegation": "The omission helped normalise an overstated CAM/rival-bid threshold and impeded effective challenge.", "intent_evidence": "No deliberate cover-up established. Purpose must be tested against docket handling, reasoning, subsequent correction opportunities and repeated notice.", "innocent_explanation": "The judge may have considered the objections already resolved or not outcome-determinative.", "gap": "Exact LexNET receipt for the reposición and complete signed response/finality family." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0005", "date": "2021-05-06", "event": "Auto resolving reposición against 25-Jan-2021 family", "plan_term": "The rival-bid threshold and its inputs must be distinguished from final admitted credit and from the plan's sale mechanics.", "judge_act": "Auto rejected the challenge; later appeal/queja materials say the court characterised Community amounts as a maximum/improvement input rather than recognition of a new credit.", "laj_act": "Notification/service and appeal routing to reconcile.", "objection": "Appeal 8-Jun-2021 carried omission, interest, Community, overvaluation and loss-of-opportunity issues.", "minimum_proposition": "The merits controversy survived the reposición and was expressly taken toward appellate review.", "allegation": "The court used disputed maxima in a way that materially disadvantaged rival bids despite denying that it was recognising a Community credit.", "intent_evidence": "Requires proof beyond inconsistency/adverse reasoning.", "innocent_explanation": "Maximum-scenario arithmetic may have been considered a lawful implementation comparator.", "gap": "Full signed Auto, complete appeal receipt and higher-court treatment to reconcile in one family." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0006", "date": "2021-05-12", "event": "Providencia calls 18-May licitación", "plan_term": "LPB's contemporaneous filing quoted the approved plan as requiring BOE Auction Portal process, twenty natural days for bidding, publication/current information and equivalent bidder/deposit safeguards.", "judge_act": "Providencia called an in-person licitación/appearance for 18 May on short notice.", "laj_act": "Notice/service/publicity mechanics are a separate LAJ audit object; the exact recipient/time/channel record is required.", "objection": "24-May reposición formally challenged the procedure and plan compliance.", "minimum_proposition": "The procedure actually called materially differed from the process LPB said the approved plan required.", "allegation": "The mechanism reduced effective competition and made the approved safeguards harder to exercise.", "intent_evidence": "No criminal purpose established from the choice of procedure alone.", "innocent_explanation": "The judge may have considered the licitación a lawful equivalent/implementation measure under later orders or procedural discretion.", "gap": "Exact authority for substituting the mechanism, any formal plan modification, full service logs and evidence that all bidders received effective notice." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0007", "date": "2021-05-18", "event": "Definitive CAM approval after licitación did not occur as contemplated", "plan_term": "LPB relied on the plan's electronic-auction/competition provisions and on the requirement to select/formalise the most beneficial improved offer where applicable.", "judge_act": "Auto approved CAM's proposal definitively after the contemplated licitación did not proceed because the then-best competing bidder did not appear.", "laj_act": "Service to the competing bidder, auction/publicity communications and procedural execution require separate LAJ-level reconstruction.", "objection": "31-May reposición alleged third-party bidder had not been effectively notified, CAM had not bettered the competing offer or lodged the relevant deposit, no compliant auction occurred, and the plan required another route.", "minimum_proposition": "The definitive adjudication mechanics were formally contested immediately on plan-compliance, notice, competition and deposit grounds.", "allegation": "The sequence improperly converted a failed/short-notice licitación into definitive CAM approval and thereby frustrated a more competitive outcome.", "intent_evidence": "Repeated notice and later resistance to review may be relevant to knowledge; they do not by themselves prove intent to favour CAM or cover tracks.", "innocent_explanation": "The court may have regarded the competing bidder's nonappearance as failure to perfect its offer and CAM as the next legally effective proposal.", "gap": "Complete bidder notice/service record, third-party bidder's exact offer/conditions, deposits, authority for the mechanism, any formal plan modification and implementation documents." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0008", "date": "2021-10-15", "event": "Two Autos resolve May-2021 reposiciones", "plan_term": "The underlying plan-compliance objections remained preserved for review.", "judge_act": "Two Autos resolved the reposiciones against the 12-May Providencia and 18-May Auto adversely to LPB.", "laj_act": "Notification and later clarification/protest routing to reconcile.", "objection": "Clarification sought; 4-Feb-2022 Protesta and 28-Feb-2022 appeal followed.", "minimum_proposition": "LPB did not acquiesce in the May-2021 route; it continued the objection through the court's later resolution.", "allegation": "The later reasoning failed to cure the alleged divergence and insulated definitive adjudication from effective merits review.", "intent_evidence": "Intent cannot be inferred merely from adverse resolution.", "innocent_explanation": "The judge may have considered the May acts lawful and the remedies limited by insolvency appeal rules.", "gap": "Full reasons, clarification chain and later appellate merits-access analysis." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0009", "date": "2022-01-26/2022-02-04", "event": "Clarification Autos and formal Protesta", "plan_term": "Plan-compliance questions preserved for the next appeal rather than abandoned.", "judge_act": "Two clarification Autos issued 26-Jan-2022.", "laj_act": "Service/notification on 31-Jan and receipt of 4-Feb protest are evidenced; any additional routing acts remain to reconcile.", "objection": "Protesta filed 4-Feb-2022, sent LexNET 202210466939566 / acknowledgment 1202210466939566, hash e40bde1324f4b923b04790ba3a2af1aa03a09bb05ae7861eaed84923ca4eeaf6.", "minimum_proposition": "LPB expressly preserved disagreement and announced direct/deferred appellate review.", "allegation": "The clarification route still did not deliver substantive correction of the challenged plan implementation.", "intent_evidence": "No criminal inference from clarification itself.", "innocent_explanation": "Clarification may have addressed only legally clarifiable matters, leaving merits for appeal.", "gap": "Complete clarification pleadings/decisions and service/finality." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0010", "date": "2022-02-28/2022-03-09", "event": "Appeal filed and then inadmitted", "plan_term": "A definitive liquidation/adjudication act and preserved earlier objections were presented for appellate review.", "judge_act": "Appeal of 28-Feb-2022 was inadmitted by Auto 9-Mar-2022.", "laj_act": "LexNET receipt proves filing; service and processing to AP/queja route must be kept separate.", "objection": "Appeal LexNET 202210473582179, hash 094fbdbd52840f52f76afcad5ea55fee8c9a844c16205381cf9ea3984d29a0d4; Queja followed.", "minimum_proposition": "The core May-2021 plan/adjudication issues were not abandoned; access to merits review itself became a separate controversy.", "allegation": "Inadmission contributed to preventing effective higher-court scrutiny of definitive liquidation implementation.", "intent_evidence": "Denial of a remedy does not prove an intent to prevent scrutiny; compare legal basis with AP's earlier statements and later decisions.", "innocent_explanation": "The insolvency appeal regime may have been interpreted as barring the particular direct/differed appeal route.", "gap": "Certified complete appeal/queja file and exact legal reasoning at every stage." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0011", "date": "2022-03-28/2022-07-27", "event": "Queja 375/2022 seeks review of inadmission", "plan_term": "The Queja expressly argued that acts of liquidation contrary to plan-approval orders must be reviewable and that a de facto change to the plan cannot evade the formal modification route.", "judge_act": "Underlying JM inadmission challenged; AP Auto 27-Jul-2022 later dismissed the Queja.", "laj_act": "AP/JM routing, service and docket chain to reconcile.", "objection": "Queja 375/2022 under Luis Miguel López; later exceptional nullity followed.", "minimum_proposition": "Plan compliance and access to review were expressly linked in a higher-court remedy.", "allegation": "The procedural architecture left a definitive adjudication effectively insulated from merits review despite repeated objections.", "intent_evidence": "Requires more than inconsistent/strict appeal reasoning.", "innocent_explanation": "AP may have considered the statutory appeal route unavailable even if the underlying act was definitive in practical effect.", "gap": "Certified Queja filing receipt, signed final AP file, service/finality and complete reasons." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0012", "date": "2023-01-16/2023-04-14", "event": "AP nullity, clarification/complement and exhaustion", "plan_term": "Underlying plan/adjudication challenge persists through fundamental-right exhaustion route.", "judge_act": "AP nullity dismissed 6-Mar-2023; clarification/complement denied 14-Apr-2023.", "laj_act": "LexNET receipt of nullity located; service/routing acts to reconcile.", "objection": "Nullity sent LexNET 202310547846140 / acknowledgment 1202310547846140, hash ec5d4c0f17b61891418d2070a39b93acd00ea129e936fa753f449cb424080312.", "minimum_proposition": "The review-access problem was exhaustively pursued beyond the Mercantile Court.", "allegation": "The sequence cumulatively prevented a merits review capable of correcting the alleged plan divergence.", "intent_evidence": "Cumulative adverse outcomes may justify investigation of consistency and knowledge; criminal agreement or purpose remains unproved.", "innocent_explanation": "Each tribunal may independently have applied procedural admissibility rules without improper coordination.", "gap": "Exact clarification/complement filing receipt and complete AP reasoning chain." }, { "id": "C36-PLAN-0013", "date": "2023", "event": "Second constitutional amparo 2811/2023", "plan_term": "Petition explicitly framed May-2021 questions: abandonment of previously called auction, CAM adjudication without the alleged required auction/deposit, electronic-auction requirement and reviewability of liquidation acts alleged to breach plan-approval orders.", "judge_act": "TC petition challenged JM/AP decisions; TC later inadmitted the amparo on 23-Oct-2023.", "laj_act": "Not a Mercantile LAJ merits act; only source/service chain relevant here.", "objection": "Petition under Luis Miguel López Gómez located; TC proceeding/inadmission located.", "minimum_proposition": "The liquidation-plan compliance controversy is documented through constitutional exhaustion, not a later repository invention.", "allegation": "The absence of merits review contributed to final implementation without the alleged plan defects being substantively corrected.", "intent_evidence": "TC inadmission is not evidence of trial-court or LAJ criminal intent.", "innocent_explanation": "Constitutional admissibility is highly selective and does not determine the underlying merits merely by admitting or rejecting the application.", "gap": "Full certified TC filing/notification chain and exact LPB remedy map." } ], "priority_evidence_actions": [ "Obtain the certified complete liquidation plan, annexes, approval Auto, finality and every later formal modification/clarification that may lawfully alter implementation mechanics.", "Obtain the certified chronological/per-piece court index and LexNET/service history for the May-2021 through 2023 remedy chain.", "Recover the complete bidder notification/service record for third-party bidder and all participants in the May-2021 process.", "Recover every deposit/fianza, bid, valuation and comparative-offer object used in the May-2021 decision.", "Separate judge decisions from LAJ service/publicity/docket acts and identify the legal competence exercised by each.", "Reconcile adjudication/deed/Registry implementation to the exact judicial decision and approved-plan authority used.", "Test the strongest lawful explanation for every alleged deviation before escalating an actor-specific criminal hypothesis." ] }