PROFESSIONAL PERIMETER · INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · OPEN VERIFICATION
Documented professional relationship, 2020 conflict memory, public presentation and a potential professional-responsibility perimeter around Insolvency 36/2012 and related matters.
Perimeter open · responsibility not determined
Editorial boundary. This page does not conclude that Cuyás Abogados, Grant Thornton Canarias, Grant Thornton Spain, GTIL or their professionals are jointly liable or committed any wrongdoing. It identifies facts that make it legally material to determine which entity, which capacity, which professional act and which controls applied at each point in time.
Why this page exists
The record contains three classes of information that need to be reconciled: a commercial relationship acknowledged by Grant Thornton Spain with a partner company located in the Canary Islands; public professional presentations and use of Grant Thornton-associated infrastructure; and a 2020 record in which Grant Thornton Advisory expressly knew the insolvency administrator's name and the CAM perimeter before receiving confidential Aweswell/Sun Park information.
Transparency standard requested. A professional-services firm may legitimately distinguish between employee, partner, contractor, collaborator, Senior Advisor and independent professional. That is precisely why a traceable answer should identify the legal entity, relationship type, scope of work, systems used, supervision, conflict controls and responsibility perimeter, rather than stopping at “not employee/not partner”.
Cuyás Abogados
Public material identifies Cuyás Abogados, S.L.P. as a professional law firm in Las Palmas. Current Cuyás public material presents Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte as part of its team and uses an @es.gt.com address for him.
Grant Thornton Canarias
Grant Thornton publicly describes the Canary project as an association/firm bringing together Grant Thornton, Cuyás Abogados, Sorben Partners and later additional firms. That presentation makes it necessary to identify the precise legal entity behind each piece of work rather than treating “Grant Thornton Canarias” as a single legal person without evidence.
Grant Thornton Spain
An official Grant Thornton Spain publication identifies Borja Rodríguez-Batllori as “Senior Advisor de Legal”. The issue is not whether that label equals employment; it is what it formally meant, who authorised it and what controls accompanied it.
Insolvency 36/2012
Communications from the insolvency administrator in December 2023, within the live insolvency matter, used an @es.gt.com account and the “Senior Advisor” description. Branding or an email domain does not itself establish entity attribution, but it requires an explanation of the operational boundary between personal activity and activity within the professional perimeter.
Aweswell/Sun Park gave the Grant Thornton Forensic team involved in the 2020 process a conflict-check list expressly identifying Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte as lawyer and insolvency administrator, together with José Acosta Matos/CAM and other parties.
Grant Thornton Forensic confirmed that it had no conflict or independence issues preventing the proposed engagement and requested key information to define its scope.
A confidentiality agreement was executed with Grant Thornton Advisory, S.L.P., a specific Grant Thornton professional entity in Spain.
Grant Thornton Advisory, S.L.P. issued engagement terms to Aweswell for an independent forensic investigation into Sun Park; its background included Insolvency 36/2012 and allegations concerning the insolvency administrator. This evidences a formal proposal, not that the engagement actually commenced.
Institutional-memory question: when Rodríguez-Batllori's later commercial/professional relationship within the Canary perimeter was created or maintained, was the 2020 Grant Thornton conflict/confidentiality record—already naming him in this same matter—available or consulted?
| Date | Source | Position | Reconciliation question |
|---|---|---|---|
| 21 Dec 2024 | GTIL, relaying GT Spain | Neither partner nor employee and “does not work for the Firm in any capacity”; GTIL also said the Firm was taking action to amend allegedly misleading LinkedIn information. | What precisely did “Firm” and “any capacity” mean: a particular legal entity, GT Spain narrowly, or the wider professional/commercial perimeter? |
| 8 Jan 2025 | GT Spain · 2024_04 | Not employee/not partner, but commercial services to a Grant Thornton partner company in Spain located in the Canary Islands. | Which company was that, and why was that relationship absent from the categorical December formulation? |
| Public record | GT Spain / Cuyás | “Senior Advisor de Legal”, Cuyás team presentation and @es.gt.com infrastructure. | Who authorised the title, account, branding, office, systems, document storage and limits of activity? |
Limited editorial conclusion. The record does not establish that the 21 December statement was deliberately false. It does support the conclusion that, without an entity-by-entity explanation, its categorical wording is potentially materially incomplete and capable of misleading a reader about the later-acknowledged professional/commercial relationship and public professional presentation.
Available searches currently have not located an accessible individual profile for Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte. That does not establish whether it was deleted, deactivated, renamed, generally restricted or whether Gil Marer was individually blocked.
The question is relevant because GTIL stated on 21 December 2024 that the Firm was taking action to amend allegedly misleading information on LinkedIn. Grant Thornton/GTIL is therefore asked to confirm what content was considered inaccurate, what change was requested, when, by whom and with what result, and to preserve the instructions, screenshots and correspondence relating to that correction. Any personal block, by itself, would not establish professional responsibility.
Potential professional responsibility
Article 11 of Law 2/2007 provides, for social debts arising from professional acts, joint and several responsibility of the professional company and the professionals—members or not—who acted, subject to the applicable contractual or extra-contractual rules. Additional Provision 2 extends the regime to certain forms of collective professional activity under a common denomination.
This is not a finding of shared liability. The statute does not automatically make Cuyás Abogados, Grant Thornton Canarias, Grant Thornton Spain or GTIL liable for an insolvency administrator's acts. It remains necessary to prove, act by act, that relevant professional conduct was carried out by, for, through or within the professional perimeter of the entity or collective body said to bear responsibility.
Publication and recovery test: document → professional act → capacity → legal entity → authority/supervision → duty → damage → causation → applicable liability rule → evidence gap.
Which specific company was the “partner company ... located in Canary Islands” identified by GT Spain on 8 January 2025?
What contract or professional/commercial relationship existed, from when to when and for what functions?
What did “Senior Advisor de Legal” formally mean and which entity authorised that title?
Which entity issued and administered the @es.gt.com account, office, systems, storage and access used?
Was the insolvency-administrator activity entirely personal and outside the Cuyás/GT perimeter? If so, how was that separation implemented and controlled?
Did any Cuyás/GT Canarias professional review, collaborate on, bill, record time for, store documents for or otherwise participate in acts connected with Insolvency 36/2012?
Was the Grant Thornton Advisory conflict check/NDA available or consulted when the Canary relationship began or continued?
Which entity and professional-liability policy applies to work actually performed within Cuyás/GT Canarias? This is distinct from any personal/statutory insolvency-administrator insurance.
Were Article 11 and Additional Provision 2 considered when defining the professional-responsibility perimeter?
How is “does not work for the Firm in any capacity” reconciled with the acknowledged commercial relationship, the “Senior Advisor de Legal” presentation and the infrastructure used?
Was the profile corrected, deleted/deactivated, restricted or otherwise changed? Is the audit trail for the action announced by GTIL preserved?
Will relevant records be preserved and supplied in response to lawful requests from courts, prosecutors, ICALPA, CNMV or other competent authorities?
The pressure is not to declare responsibility before it is proved. It is to prevent a complex professional-perimeter issue from being closed by an insufficient employment label where documents exist to reconstruct it precisely.
Right of reply and correction
They are invited to identify the entity, correct any fact, explain the scope of the relationship and provide a reasoned position on the professional perimeter. Any material verifiable correction will be published with equivalent prominence.