1. Direct private conduct
Each person and entity must answer for what it did, signed, represented, authorised, received or benefited from. There is no collective responsibility based on family, Community, firm or group association.
PRIVATE ACT → AC KNOWLEDGE → AFFIRMATIVE ACT → AUTHORITY → EFFECT → PRESENT REMEDY
7 June 2018: omission—or affirmative enablement?
The highest-priority documentary question is now narrower and stronger. The record must establish not only what the insolvency administration failed to do, but what it affirmatively knew, requested, validated, authorised or allowed to continue before and immediately after the 7 June material-control events.
Perimeter rule. One physical and commercial hotel did not mean one owner, debtor, insolvency estate, operator, Community, client or source of authority. LPB, Aweswell, Matkator, CEXP, the Community, Pink Canary, CAM and third parties must remain separate act by act.
PRIORITY QUESTION · 7 JUNE 2018
What did the AC affirmatively do—and what authority supported it?
The accessible record supports more than a pure omission theory. In January 2018 the AC first requested material possession of the apartments belonging to LPB. On 18 January, his follow-up stated that the purpose was to take physical possession of the complex and requested the main electronic access code and instructions for its modification. The client escalated that change in wording to Cuatrecasas the next day.
Immediately after the 7 June events, Juan Tomás Parrilla reported a direct conversation with the AC in which the AC's position was that the Community had authorised the security arrangement and that Acosta Matos could be present in the complex because it supposedly owned approximately twenty apartments and could use its properties and common areas.
What Community resolution, title record, court authority or legal analysis did the AC verify before adopting that justificatory position—and what limits did he impose to prevent individual-unit ownership or Community security from becoming complex-wide control over LPB, Matkator, CEXP or third-party rights?
Ownership is not the same question as authority. A February 2018 working ownership workbook derived from the June 2017 Gesvalt dataset does not itself corroborate an Acosta Matos/CAM ownership entry in the reviewed owner fields. It is not a certified 7 June 2018 Registry snapshot, so it cannot prove CAM owned no units at that date. The correct next step is a certified finca-by-finca Registry position and the source relied upon by the AC for the reported “twenty apartments” premise.
Evidential boundary: the present record strongly supports prior knowledge, affirmative AC possession/access conduct and an immediate contemporaneous justificatory position attributed directly to the AC. It does not yet prove that he instructed the physical acts before 7 June, knew the asserted authority was absent, or acted with criminal intent. No direct pre-event AC→CAM/Matos operational instruction has yet been located in the accessible Gmail corpus. Those communications and authority records are now P0 production targets.
SECONDARY INSTITUTIONAL QUESTION · 2018–2019
Where was the effective protection of LPB and the estate?
The controlled original confirms that CUATRECASAS warned the Tías Property Registry on 28 December 2018 and attached ten documents concerning the CAM transaction, Plan and stay. The postal trail records admission on 3 January and delivery to the Registry on 4 January 2019 at 11:58. On 9 January there was a follow-up, a reasoned Registrar response and a qualification identifying an ob rem obstacle for properties 8,536, 8,653 and 8,654.
If the risk was serious enough to trigger a notice, burofax and Registry follow-up, what complete, sustained and accounted-for protection did each actor provide before, during and after the transaction?
The action is counterevidence to a total-abandonment allegation against Cuatrecasas. It also creates a benchmark for engagement scope, response to the qualification, judicial route, restitution, accounting, warnings, handover and later fee enforcement. Separately, the 24 October 2019 order refused to convalidate the deed for lack of prior judicial authorisation.
Evidential boundary: institutional receipt is not immediate personal reading; the Registrar did not remain silent but answered on standing/qualification scope; and one protective act does not prove that every remedy was implemented. Open the notice → ob rem → non-convalidation reconstruction.
Correct order of accountability
2. AC knowledge and commissions
The insolvency administrator occupied a court-appointed office. The priority evidence test is knowledge → authority → affirmative act or validation → effect → corrective action, followed by omissions and accounting.
3. Lawyers: subsidiary question
Their responsibility depends on client, mandate, instructions, knowledge, available remedies, work actually performed and continuity. They did not occupy the AC’s office.
4. Present do-over
Reconstruction, production, accounting, preservation, restitution and current remedies. It is not a procedural erasure or a premature liability conclusion.
Unitary chain 2015–2019
November 2015
Direct AC knowledge
The Community/exploitation threat was put directly to the AC. His response recognised that proposed actions in defence of the concurso could be brought by the debtor side with his authorisation. This is a knowledge/protection benchmark, not proof of later intent.
June–July 2016
Knowledge checkpointOriginals to complete
The Jonathan Simó/CLS economic analysis, professional meeting and described burofax place debt, expenditure, authority, voting and accounting before the 2018 events. The specific AC response should be produced.
3–18 January 2018
Affirmative AC action
The possession request moved from LPB apartments to wording referring to physical possession of the complex and modification of the principal electronic access credentials. The legal perimeter and safeguards require reconstruction.
18 May–7 June
Complete evidence pendingProvisional dismissal visible
The Community, security, access, locks and material-control sequence requires authority, instructions, payer, inventory, limits and patrimonial impact, person by person.
8 June 2018
AC position reportedAuthority to verify
Juan Tomás's contemporaneous report of his direct conversation attributes to the AC a justification based on Community-approved security and Acosta Matos's asserted apartment ownership/common-area rights. The source documents for those premises must be produced.
14–19 June
Protective lawyer activity
Juan Tomás repeatedly sought Community material, assessed protective relief, worked on the appeal and exceptional suspension route, while the funded rescue/better-offer process remained live. The question is completeness and follow-through, not literal lawyer inactivity.
26 June 2018
Decision to certify
The suspension must be read asset by asset. The question is how the insolvency administration implemented and monitored it and what Registry/Court protection lawyers pursued.
28 November 2018
Mandatory disaggregation
The described deed, locales lane, alleged 31-finca lane, remate and 2022 adjudication must not be merged. Each instrument needs its own parties, assets, price, authority, payment, Registry and account.
28 December 2018
Protective action described
The Cuatrecasas Registry intervention is a benchmark: original action controlled, delivery demonstrated on 4-Jan-2019, response and qualification controlled; property-by-property follow-through and implementation still to be reconciled.
20 March–24 October 2019
Procedural link to complete
The convalidation request attributed to the AC and the later decision require explanation of purpose, authority, price, funds, Registry, restitution, accounting and material implementation.
What the record establishes—and does not establish
| Element | Supports | Does not prove | Required production |
|---|---|---|---|
| AC knowledge before 2018 | Community/exploitation, debt, authority and accounting controversies were known before 7 June. | Acceptance of every allegation or later intent. | Native notices, annexes, receipt and AC response/action trail. |
| January 2018 possession/access | Affirmative AC conduct concerning LPB possession and later complex-wide access wording. | Instruction to CAM/Matos or unlawful purpose. | Native emails, governing order, response and implementation records. |
| 8 June AC position | Immediate knowledge and an affirmative justificatory/validation position attributed to the AC. | Pre-event instruction, knowing falsity of authority or criminal intent. | Community resolution, certified title, AC source and all pre/post-event communications. |
| 2018 material control | A physical and operational sequence requiring individual attribution. | A CAM possession order or final criminal finding. | Certified case file, security, payer, keys, inventories and communications. |
| Cuatrecasas Registry action | Recognised legal/Registry risk and at least one protective act. | That the full protective programme was complete or that another actor breached a duty. | Original and ten annexes controlled; delivery, response and qualification registered. Historical property-by-property certification and complete follow-through remain open. |
| 2019 convalidation lane | Direct procedural relationship between the AC and the described transaction. | Criminal intent or complete legal effect without the filing. | Full request, annexes, opposition, order and implementation. |
| 2022 adjudication and MYND | Later title, operation and value reality. | Retroactive legality of all earlier acts or knowledge of later third parties. | Licitation, deed, inventory, possession, Registry, income and accounts. |
The private actors are not absolved
The institutional focus on the AC does not replace direct attribution to Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Antonio Cogolludo, Shaila Cogolludo, José Daniel Acosta Matos, Laura Patricia Acosta Matos, the Community, relevant CAM entities and Molina/Monte Lanza proprietors or entities where the documents support it. The public test remains: document → act → capacity → authority → knowledge → representation → benefit → consequence → contrary explanation → missing proof.
Responsibility is not inferred from family relationship, Community membership, professional relationship or corporate association. Montelanza, S.L., Molina proprietors and the dissident bloc must not be merged without date- and act-specific evidence.
Subsidiary question: where were the lawyers?
CUATRECASAS cannot be described as wholly inactive: the described Registry action and other rescue/protection work are located. Juan Tomás also sought Community material and pursued appellate/suspension work in June 2018. The sustainable question is whether those separate actions were sufficiently broad, urgent, integrated, sustained and implemented across Community legitimacy, voting, possession, Matkator/CEXP, suspension, Registry, restitution, accounting, AC accountability, funds, damages and handover.
The lawyers did not occupy the AC's statutory office. Their client, mandate, instructions, advice, filings, decisions on timing, available remedies and follow-through must therefore be assessed separately.
Present do-over: what can lawfully be done now
7 June authority reconstruction
Produce every Community, AC, CAM/Matos, security, locksmith, key/access and title record for January–June 2018.
Estate accounting
Opening-to-final inventory, Community debt, credit, locales/EUR 400,000, income, claims, costs, fees and possible surplus in one reproducible bridge.
Title and rights
Finca-by-finca matrix for LPB, Matkator, third parties, common elements, ob rem links, possession, CEXP, operator and tourism licence.
Legal protection
Qualified Spanish counsel should map live appeals, production, Registry, possession, restitution, liability, damages, limitation and structured resolution.
Document recovery
Originals, inaccessible ZIP archives, certified case files, deeds, payments, audio, engagements, invoices, time records and handovers, with hashes and classification.
Cooperation and response
Finite questions to the AC, actors, Cuatrecasas, Juan Tomás and custodians; responses preserved and fairly published where appropriate.
P0 production — 7 June first
- Every AC communication with the Community, its administrator, security provider, Francisco Mario Matos Matas, Acosta Matos/CAM and the other identified participants from 1 January to 30 June 2018.
- Complete May 2018 Community notice, agenda, attendance/proxies, minutes, resolutions and security authority.
- Security contract, payer, deployment instructions, locksmith/access instructions, keys, access codes, chains and inventories.
- Certified finca-by-finca Registry ownership as at 7 June 2018 and the source for the AC's reported “twenty apartments” premise.
- Every corrective, limiting, restitution, preservation, inventory or Court measure taken by the AC after learning of the 7 June events.
- Certified Arrecife file and precautionary-measure history, preserving the provisional dismissal/adverse outcome.
- Certified 26 June suspension order and asset-by-asset scope.
- Each 28 November deed, locales lane and alleged 31-finca lane kept separate.
- Native custody of the burofax/delivery proof and historical property-by-property Registry certification, preserving the already controlled Cuatrecasas package.
- 20 March 2019 AC request and certified 24 October order, followed by proof of actual restoration, cancellation, re-registration, accounting or recovery.
Updated 24 August 2026. This is a source-control synthesis and remains open to correction, production of originals and right of response.