18 JUNE 2026 COMPLAINT · DEAN'S OFFICE LOCATOR 22 · INSOLVENCY-ADMINISTRATOR LAYER
This page publicly digitises and summarises the complaint presented by Gil Marer on 18 June 2026 concerning Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte in his alleged capacity as insolvency administrator of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. The complaint is a party allegation and an evidential roadmap; it is not a judicial finding of guilt.
The operative source is a 55-page complaint internally dated 17 June 2026 and personally presented on 18 June. It is addressed to the Investigation Section selected by allocation and defines itself as a complaint / notitia criminis, not a formal private prosecution complaint or formal appearance.
Later sources identify DP 1956/2026, NIG 3501643220260016826 and IUP LI2026016921, Plaza no. 1 of the Las Palmas Court of Instance Investigation Section. The relationship is published as a later documentary and procedural association; the repository keeps daily reference no. 22 separate from the court case number.
The object is the administrator's own alleged conduct: what he knew, checked, reported, requested, authorised or implemented; what he allegedly omitted; which figures or documents he adopted; and what accounting he provided. Responsibility of private actors or of the insolvency judge is not imported automatically.
The complete original is not reproduced because it contains personal details, signatures, addresses, contact information and potentially restricted material. The web edition preserves structure, chronology, requests, limits, visible anomalies and evidence routes without exposing that data.
The claimant says Sun Park was a hotel and productive unit material to LPB's estate and asks what inventory, access, preservation, valuation, expert, revenue-recovery and control measures followed documented warnings.
The complaint presents the ONA/Clubotel alternative and Stoneweg/Varia, Elaia/Lagoon and other financing routes as a possibility requiring a payoff figure, coordination and temporal protection. What reached the administrator, what he transmitted to the Court and what response he gave must be verified.
A shift in access, keys, security, guests and operation is alleged. The correct examination is act by act: title, instruction, affected space, actor, administrator knowledge, response and effect on LPB, Matkator and third parties.
The complaint connects the 28 November 2018 deed, the 20 March 2019 validation request, the 24 October 2019 order and later banking, accounting, registry and restitution treatment. It does not say the money disappeared; it asks for complete traceability.
It asks which assignment version and schedules the administrator held, which price or allocation method he knew, how he promoted substitution of creditor, what happened to Preliminary Disclosure 1041/2017, and how the title was later reconciled with the operative amount.
Recognised credit, mortgage cap, interest, improvement threshold, realisation value, alleged write-off, extinguished credit and possible surplus must be distinguished. Different numbers do not prove an offence; they require the documentary and accounting bridge.
The complaint seeks reconciliation of the bidding appearance, offers, publicity, third-party access, orders, the 25 January 2022 report, the 21 February deed, release of charges and registry entries.
The evidential close requires the general ledger, CAM sub-account, €400,000 supports, final accounts, banking annexes, objections, approval or pending status, and correspondence with assets removed or transferred.
| Point | Public status | What it does not mean |
|---|---|---|
| Presentation | Complaint personally presented on 18 June 2026 under locator daily reference no. 22. | Its allegations are not thereby proven facts. |
| Later proceeding | Later sources associate it with DP 1956/2026, Plaza no. 1, with identified NIG and IUP. | daily reference no. 22 is not the DP number and must not replace it. |
| Decision | An order opening, terminating and provisionally dismissing the matter was communicated on 21 July 2026. | It is not a conviction, acquittal or general validation of the insolvency administration. |
| Challenge | Reform and appeal drafts were located, but no receipt proving filing was located. | Prepared, sent to counsel or reviewed does not equal filed. |
| Reopening | The provisional dismissal is recorded as capable of renewed assessment if legally sufficient new evidence appears. | No reopening is said to have been ordered or to be likely to succeed. |
daily reference no. 22 shares facts and sources with DP 1901/2026, daily reference no. 24, removal and fee appeals, ICALPA, the prosecution service and asset-recovery routes. Each link has a defined function: locate knowledge, duty, document, effect, beneficiary or remedy. No link automatically imports the accusation of another track.
The digest separates primary source, party allegation, inference, procedural status and documentary gap. Any person or entity mentioned may submit a documented correction or response for treatment under the public corrections protocol. Absence of a document from the repository is not presented as evidence that it does not exist.
Interconnection register: data/control-22-24-interconnection-register.json · Public cut-off: 4 September 2026.
daily reference no. 22 ≠ DP 1956/2026. The Decanato locator and the later judicial number remain distinct unless the certified reparto bridge proves the allocation.
CANONICAL CORPUS · 21 SEPTEMBER 2026
This dossier belongs to the joint Ref.21 / Ref.22 / Ref.24 source corpus. The canonical digitisation locks filename, pages and SHA-256 and requires complete page coverage: Control 21: 86/86 + 26/26 + 19/19; Reference 22: 55/55; Reference 24: 79/79 + 13/13.
Open the complete six-document matrix → · Machine/hash manifest →
Interconnection: Ref.21 · private actors · Ref.22 · Insolvency Administrator · Ref.24 · judicial conduct. Facts and sources may cross tracks; attribution, knowledge, intent, causation and procedural identity remain actor- and track-specific.