This case is not intelligible if it is reduced to “a 2008 swap dispute”.

1. Why did it take until 2023 to file?

The claim did not first emerge in 2023. By late 2020/January 2021 LPB/Aweswell had formally sought an action against Bankia. On 25-Jan-2021 the Insolvency Administrator told the Las Palmas court that he had accepted bringing an approximately €596,123.75 damages claim because it could benefit the estate, subject to Aweswell funding the process and securing costs.

The 2023 pleading says the Administration did not then retain counsel and bring the case. In September 2023, when new lawyers sought procedural authority, the Administrator refused it, citing his limitation/preclusion view, change of counsel, the guarantee and the advanced liquidation stage. Aweswell therefore filed from a subsidiary-creditor-standing theory.

This history explains delay; it does not decide limitation, prescription or standing. CaixaBank contests all three.

2. Who is really asserting the claim — LPB or Aweswell?

Aweswell is the claimant of record, but it argues that it may subsidiarily pursue an LPB/estate claim where the Insolvency Administration failed to do so. That makes Concurso 36/2012 part of the architecture of the Valencia proceedings, not just background.

3. What is the monetary claim?

CaixaBank's own expert report records total claimed loss of €1,124,445.84. The figure is disputed. Por Derecho considers the broader importance greater than the headline number because findings on causation, package economics, pledge, accounts, execution and recovery may affect the reconstruction of net loss across the LPB/Sun Park history.

4. Why is this more than a swap-mis-selling case?

Because the required ledger is wider: mortgage, floor, swap, refinancing, pledge, accounts, payments, alleged arrears, acceleration and enforcement. Por Derecho says the product cannot be valued in isolation from the liquidity architecture it formed part of and the insolvency that followed.

5. What does “split the credit from the financial package” mean?

Potential personal/product liabilities can remain with or pass through the bank succession while the mortgage asset itself is transferred to a different chain. Here the upstream responsibility route is Caja/BFA/Bankia→CaixaBank; the asset route is Bankia→SAREB→PH122→CAM. The forensic question is whether rights, defences, payments and responsibilities were correctly tracked when the same economic history acquired separate legal lives.

6. Why is CaixaBank still relevant once CAM acquired the credit?

Because CaixaBank is Bankia's universal successor and is sued for the historical banking relationship. Sale of the mortgage asset does not automatically validate prior charges, product conduct, acceleration or account treatment, nor does it necessarily transfer every personal liability. Conversely, a banking claim does not automatically invalidate later assignments.

7. Why is the Insolvency Administrator central?

He controlled LPB's institutional gateways: representation, creditor treatment, estate litigation, disclosure, valuation, liquidation and final accounts. He accepted the Bankia action in 2021, refused authority for the new filing in 2023, and is connected to separate disputed CAM-facing events. CaixaBank itself requested his testimony in Valencia; Aweswell later joined that request.

8. Are CaixaBank's words really similar to the Administrator's?

The stronger and more precise point is source provenance: CaixaBank's defence actually uses the Administrator's documents and positions. It files the 2013 AC report and relies on insolvency treatment and the 2021 AC action boundary for standing, preclusion/finality and scope arguments. Its expert repeats the 2021 scope point.

That does not prove coordination. It does justify examination of provenance, communications, document selection and why CaixaBank wanted the Administrator as a witness.

9. What would “coordination” or “collusion” require?

More than aligned interests or use of the same court file. The hypothesis would require evidence such as shared knowledge, communications/instructions, consciously complementary decisions, coordinated selection or suppression of material, common patrimonial purpose, or other proof satisfying the elements of a specific cause of action or offence.

10. Why seek both versions “on the record”?

To fix testable versions on source provenance, expected witness evidence, the 2021 authorization, why no case was filed through the Administration, what was known about Bankia→SAREB→PH122→CAM, how balances/guarantees were understood and how insolvency events relate to the present defence. In Spain the mechanism is witness/interrogation evidence and appropriate production, not an automatic US deposition.

11. Why does the 2018 OB REM transaction matter?

The relevant registry wording, reproduced in Aweswell's opposition, treated linked properties as not separately alienable and described the distributed mortgage as one loan for payment allocation. On 28-Nov-2018 LPB, represented by the Insolvency Administrator, and CAM declared that link extinguished to facilitate a direct €400k sale of specified properties to CAM. The Registry initially suspended cancellation; the Administration sought judicial validation and Aweswell opposed it.

Por Derecho sees this as a visible asset-side analogue of the wider split-path thesis: a structure expressly framed as integrated was separated in a transaction with the creditor perimeter. That is not criminal by itself, but it demands authority, valuation, estate-benefit, conflict and accounting analysis.

12. What is the Acosta Matos perimeter connection?

CAM acquired the PH122 credit in 2017 and later occupied creditor and asset positions in the insolvency. Por Derecho separately examines control, valuation, direct sales, the 2022 credit-to-title implementation and HNT/MYND continuity. The objective is actor-by-actor attribution, not treating every company/person as one legal actor.

13. Why does Por Derecho allege a repeated functional pattern involving the Administrator?

The pattern is not used as character evidence. It is a document-selection method: at different times the Administrator controlled LPB's representation, PH122→CAM disclosure, the Bankia recovery action, the OB REM sale/unlinking, valuation/alternatives and liquidation implementation. The question is whether each decision has an independent, estate-interest explanation or whether the records show a recurring enabling logic benefiting CAM while constraining LPB recovery routes.