Before
Linked properties ↔ mortgage loan.
The reproduced clause said the owners could not alienate linked properties separately and the mortgage, though allocated across properties, was to be considered one loan with payments applied to the whole.
28-NOV-2018 · LPB REPRESENTED BY THE INSOLVENCY ADMINISTRATOR ↔ CAM
OB REM: an integrated property/mortgage link was extinguished to permit a direct transfer to the creditor perimeter.
The significance is functional. Registry wording reproduced in Aweswell's 2019 opposition described specified properties as linked so they should not be sold separately and described the distributed mortgage as one loan for payment allocation. On 28 November 2018 LPB, acting through the Insolvency Administrator, and CAM declared the OB REM link extinguished as part of a direct sale.
Boundary. The deed, Registry treatment, Administrator's March 2019 filing and Aweswell's opposition document a real dispute. This page does not state that the transaction was criminal. Any criminal characterization requires proof of authority, knowledge, purpose, loss, benefit and any required concert.
Visual: the separation point
→
28-Nov-2018
LPB/Administrator + CAM declared the OB REM link extinguished and executed a direct sale of specified properties to CAM within a €400,000 transaction.
The Administrator later argued that CAM was also holder of the mortgage-credit position/right associated with the OB REM link.
Initial Registry result
The Registry suspended cancellation/registration for affected properties because it did not identify an express judicial order cancelling the link.
→
2019
The Administrator sought judicial validation/cancellation; Aweswell opposed, arguing that the operation cut across the unitary realization structure and the suspension affecting the mortgaged properties.
Controlled chronology
16 April 2018
The liquidation record describes a CAM structure with economically connected components: a route concerning mortgaged properties/debt and a €400,000 direct purchase of specified linked properties.
26 June 2018
Realization of the disputed mortgaged properties was suspended. The Administrator later argued that other liquidation operations could continue.
28 November 2018
LPB through the Insolvency Administration and CAM executed the unlinking and sale deed, declaring the OB REM link extinguished.
9 January 2019
The Registry initially suspended the relevant cancellation/registration for lack of an express judicial cancellation order / sufficient title.
20 March 2019
The Administrator argued that he could sell as liquidator and that CAM, as holder of the associated mortgage position/right, could consent to release; he sought court validation.
13 May 2019
Aweswell opposed, alleging that the unlinking/sale was inconsistent with the unitary realization structure and challenging authority/timing. That is a party allegation, not a judicial finding.
CAM's dual role and the institutional gateway
CAM as buyer
Receives the properties sold directly.
+
CAM as creditor/right-holder
According to the Administrator's later position, CAM also held the mortgage-credit/right position whose consent made release possible.
Institutional question: LPB was not acting through an ordinary autonomous director. The Insolvency Administrator was exercising LPB's liquidation/representation powers. The forensic question therefore includes what estate-interest, authority, conflict, valuation and alternative analysis justified using that power to carry out this transaction with CAM.
Why this mirrors the wider split-credit thesis
| Structure | Integrated form | Later separation requiring reconciliation |
|---|---|---|
| Financial package | Mortgage + floor + swap + refinancing + pledge + accounts. | Product/conduct liability remains upstream while mortgage asset travels to CAM. |
| Credit/accounting | One economic history of principal, payments and guarantees. | Different insolvency, enforcement and assignment “lives” with different figures/functions. |
| OB REM | Properties linked and mortgage treated as one loan for allocation. | Administrator + CAM extinguish the link to enable a separate transfer to CAM. |
| Asset outcome | LPB retains an estate of rights/assets/recovery routes. | Por Derecho alleges successive decisions reduced alternatives/reversibility while the creditor route consolidated control/title. |
POR DERECHO ALLEGATION · CRIMINAL-FIRST · NOT A FINDING
Functional enabling-agent hypothesis
Por Derecho alleges that the OB REM transaction should be compared with other occasions on which the Insolvency Administrator controlled a decisive LPB gateway and the outcome materially favoured the CAM/Acosta Matos perimeter. The allegation is that the office was disloyally instrumentalised as a functional enabling gateway within a credit→control→title architecture detrimental to LPB and its perimeter.
“Functional agent” is an investigative label, not proof of contractual agency or criminal concert. A legal conclusion requires actor-specific proof of power/duty, knowledge, act or omission, intent where required, causation, loss, benefit and any necessary coordination.
Pattern-testing matrix
| Episode | Administrator gateway | Por Derecho's alleged effect |
|---|---|---|
| PP 1041/2017 | LPB representation / disclosure route. | PH122→CAM price/payment disclosure route ended. |
| OB REM 2018 | LPB representation / liquidation. | Unlinking + direct CAM acquisition; CAM buyer and creditor/right-holder. |
| Bankia action 2021→2023 | Estate recovery litigation. | Action accepted as potentially beneficial, not filed through Administration, power refused in 2023. |
| Valuation / alternatives / control | Estate preservation/liquidation. | Por Derecho alleges alternative recovery/refinancing routes were lost while CAM route consolidated. |
| 2022 credit→title | Liquidation implementation/accounts. | Final CAM title outcome with disputed debt/value reconciliation. |
Correct use: recurrence does not prove guilt. It identifies records to compare for a common instruction, logic, conflict or independent estate-interest justification.
Strongest innocent explanation
CAM may say it had capacity to consent to release as holder of the associated mortgage right; the Administrator may say the liquidation plan permitted sale of properties outside the suspension, the €400,000 transaction benefited the estate, and judicial validation cured a Registry/formal issue.
The evidence-led response is to demand the contemporaneous authority, valuation, estate-interest comparison, funds flow, interaction with the suspension, final accounts and any side agreements — rather than presuming those explanations true or false.