CAPACITY · DATE · SOURCE · LIMIT
Daniel Irigoyen: his role in the funded exit
Daniel Irigoyen was a career magistrate and commercial-law specialist historically recorded on voluntary leave, acting in this transaction as a lawyer and legal coordinator. His role connected investor, shareholder, LPB and hotel operator. It should not be reduced to “ONA’s lawyer”, or confused with the insolvency judge or a financier.
Why it matters: his documentation connects the commercial exit with knowledge and action in the insolvency process. It enables examination of what was presented, requested and answered, without automatically attributing Gil Marer’s criminal conclusions to him.
Documented role over time
| Date | Capacity | Documentary contribution | Evidential limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 / 2018 | Historical professional status | The source control identifies voluntary leave effective 1 September 2013, the judicial seniority list closed on 31 March 2018, and his admission as a professional partner of De Pasqual & Marzo in February 2018. | These records do not make him the sitting judge in Insolvency 36/2012 or establish his current professional status. |
| 13 June 2018 | Lawyer and exit coordinator | His contemporaneous account describes presenting himself to the judge as the lawyer coordinating investor, shareholder company, insolvent company and hotel operator, followed by work with the Insolvency Administrator. | This is his contemporary professional account, not a judicial minute or automatic proof of every spoken word. |
| 22 June / 4 July 2018 | Preservation of assets | Preserved communications address danger to LPB property and coordination of conservation measures through the Insolvency Administration, with judicial assistance where appropriate. | Advice alone does not prove that every measure was formally requested. |
| September 2018 | Debt, payment and exit | Coordinated work sought to quantify debt and pay or consign all creditors. Daniel reported that the judge had been told finance was approved; his 26 September notes address an approximate €13.1m figure and the pending appeal. | The reported approval is not drawdown and does not replace certificates, filings and rulings. |
| May–July 2019 | Representation of Clubotel | He acted for Clubotel La Dorada in seeking personation and challenging refusal. The docket identifies Clubotel as interested while that challenge was processed. | The formal acquisition/access interest must be read with the wider exit record; the pleading alone does not contain the whole transaction. |
Follow the evidence and the transaction
- Complete provenance ledger for the 2018 communications
- Owner-led funded exit and staged security
- Clubotel personation: facts, allegation and limits
- Source control and historical professional status
Official references identified by the source control: BOE-A-2013-7716, BOE-A-2018-5535 and BORME-A-2018-47-08. Open proof includes the actual filed applications and annexes, procedural receipts, debt certification and each facility’s closing conditions.
Confidentiality, contrary evidence and right of reply remain preserved. This page publishes attributed summaries, not full private communications.