whole-unit depreciation
ACTÚA adopts 20 years physical age and in April expressly defends applying 57.14% to the total functional unit rather than property by property.
ACTÚA · CAM · JAN–APR 2018 · PRIMARY SOURCES RECOVERED
ACTÚA acknowledges incomplete interior access, an “at least 61” figure supplied by others, and 57.14% depreciation for the functional unit as a whole.
The evidential question is now precise: what representative property-level basis supported a whole-complex condition conclusion and uniform depreciation where ACTÚA did not access 100% of the interior and its own 61-unit figure is expressly presented as information supplied to the valuer?
“according to information supplied”
ACTÚA records at least 61 unrefurbished units but attributes that figure to information received. Provider and exact property list remain open.
interior access
ACTÚA states it could not access the interior of 100% of the complex and says overall condition was also inferred from general exterior images.
The 13 photographs correct an earlier hypothesis
The record is mixed: it documents deterioration and three worn apartment interiors, but also usable-looking common areas, people visibly present and an intact-looking reception. Only three images are clear apartment interiors and none is visibly identified by apartment, finca, block, owner or access provider.
Correction: we do not publish that ACTÚA showed only negative Blocks 4–5 images. The issue is now representativeness, access, the source of 61 and extrapolation of uniform depreciation.
60 / 61 / ≈44 must remain separate
2017 acquisition/minority reconstruction; exact native source still outstanding.
ACTÚA 3 April: at least 61 unrefurbished units according to information supplied to the valuer.
GESVALT professional opinion that approximately 44 were poor and the remainder usable.
Blocks 4 + 5 = exactly 44 apartments
The numerical match justifies investigation but does not prove identity. The contemporaneous “two blocks / 61” wording also cannot literally fit Blocks 4+5 as an architectural apartment count.
Formal court transmission documented
LexNET id 201810203877878 establishes that CAM filed its pleading and ACTÚA technical responses to GESVALT on 17/04/2018 at 12:27 in Concurso 36/2012 before Mercantile Court nº1 Las Palmas. This proves transmission and litigation position, not the merits or the causal weight assigned by the insolvency administrator/court.
Open: source/list behind 61, interiors actually inspected, keys/access, geolocation of the three interiors, native source for 60, unit basis for ≈44 and later AC/court treatment.
Why this matters to the €400,000 disposal
The insolvency plan used an ACTÚA-derived figure of €489,361.96 for the 31-property branch later conveyed to CAM for €400,000. Those properties included reception/main access, premises and pools/solarium. GESVALT’s contrary methodology treated the 262 properties as one hotel operation. That does not make the 31 properties legally worth the whole-hotel €26.4 million figure; it does make hotel-wide operational loss a necessary part of any prejudice analysis.
Gil Marer’s criminal allegation: he says ACTÚA was materially false or non-representative and that the Insolvency Administrator knew, or consciously disregarded obvious reasons to know, that it was unsafe as a basis for the disposal. Gil characterises the latter possibility as wilful and criminal recklessness. The methodological defects and contrary material are documented. Knowledge, deliberate disregard, the applicable offence elements, causation and criminal purpose are not adjudicated and are submitted for prosecutorial investigation.
The Administrator later reported receipt of the €400,000 cheque, opening the LPB account and paying his own remuneration. The court then refused convalidation of the deed for lack of judicial authority. Gil now characterises the sale as criminal and the money as illicit proceeds; the dedicated page traces the later €26,750 former-counsel payment, the fee mismatch and the effect on defence continuity.
Open the valuations, source PDFs and “golden trigger” analysis →