RPL 2523/2025 before Section 4 of the Las Palmas Provincial Court: an appeal against Judgment 163/2023 in the culpability section of Insolvency 36/2012.
INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · JUDGMENT 163/2023 · CULPABILITY APPEAL
Las Palmas Provincial Court, Section 4 · RPL 2523/2025
RPL 2523/2025 is the culpability appeal roll, not merely a documentary-completeness track. This page states the verifiable status, summarises grounds pleaded by the parties and strictly separates the appeal from any criminal, civil, regulatory or disciplinary action.
Attribution: this page states the public position of Gil Marer / Por Derecho. It does not speak collectively for the appellants or their procedural representatives and does not replace any filed pleading.
UPDATED · 24 AUGUST 2026
Note on judicial independence, procedural status and reservation of actions
The Spanish-language note does not seek a predetermined outcome or introduce material outside the court record. It explains the legitimate request for independent appellate review and reserves only remedies and actions available under law.
CRIMINAL-MISUSE THESIS · INVESTIGATIVE, NOT ADJUDICATED
The complete sequence requires investigation; the appeal requires its own analysis.
Administrator overreach · defective two-page Fiscal opinion · DI 248 circularity · selected judicial adoption · possible benefit to the Acosta Matos perimeter. This thesis is not extra-record evidence and asks no outcome of the Court: RPL 2523/2025 must be decided only on its grounds, proceedings and applicable law.
Our positionNot every adverse decision is criminal. The documentary sequence requires an independent test of possible responsibility inversion and diversion of scrutiny.
Appeal boundaryRPL 2523/2025 must be decided only on its record, pleaded grounds, adversarial process and law; every other action belongs in its proper forum.
CONTROLLED DOCUMENTARY STATUS
What the decision signed on 11 May 2026 establishes
Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.; Gil Marer; Patricia Domínguez; and Pink Canary Services.
The decision did not list a hearing and scheduled deliberation, vote and decision for 4 June 2026. A deliberation date is not proof that judgment has been issued, served or become final.
As at 24 August 2026, Por Derecho has not located a later merits decision, service record or finality record in the documentary and communications corpus available to it. Not located does not mean nonexistent. Current certification must be obtained from the court or procedural representatives.
Deciding formation: the decision lists the Section's judicial complement and states that three judges are sufficient absent the identified statutory situation. Without the final decision or certification, that does not establish the actual deciding formation.
PARTIES AND INSTRUMENTS · DENOMINATOR CONTROL
Three appeals for four appellant interests
The number of persons or companies appealing is not the number of appeal pleadings. This reconstruction remains subject to the certified official docket.
| Interest | Instrument | State | Outstanding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gil Marer | Separate appeal, 30-Oct-2023 | Filed copy and deposit chain located. | Principal LexNET receipt. |
| Pink Canary + Patricia | One joint 17-page appeal, 30-Oct-2023 | Copy and receipt located; 19-page draft superseded. | Certified docket mapping and service. |
| LPB | Separate appeal reported, 2-Nov-2023 | Filing supported by communications, deposit/cure and 11-May-2026 decision. | Exact pleading and principal receipt. |
| Aweswell | No appeal from Judgment 163/2023 identified | Its other appeals belong to Administrator removal/fees lanes. | Do not import separate proceedings. |
SCOPE OF THE APPEAL
Grounds found in the reviewed appeal briefs
These are grounds pleaded by appellants, not findings made by the Provincial Court. This summary neither replaces nor expands the filed briefs.
Defencelessness and nullity
Gil Marer and Pink Canary/Patricia allege a denial of effective representation concerning the 25 July 2023 hearing, the absence of their own counsel and the requested adjournment.
Consistency and sufficient reasons
The briefs allege insufficient reasoning, internal tensions and inadequate treatment of material questions raised by the parties.
Rent, the Pink contract and aggravation
The appeals challenge the treatment of rent, the Pink contract and costs, expert evidence, and the causal link between the alleged conduct and the creation or aggravation of insolvency.
Accounts, timing, cooperation and sanction
Depending on the appellant, the reviewed briefs challenge the accounting analysis, timing of the insolvency filing, cooperation, alleged defects in the administrator's report and the reasoning for the ten-year disqualification.
Corpus limit: the controlled record includes appeal briefs for Gil and Pink Canary/Patricia and associated filing records to differing degrees. The 11 May decision confirms LPB as an appellant, but LPB's exact final brief and principal filing receipt have not yet been located in this corpus.
LEGITIMATE APPELLATE REVIEW
What is—and is not—asked of the court
The legitimate expectation is narrow and exacting.
RPL 2523/2025 must be decided on its record, grounds, adversarial process and applicable law. The public criminal-misuse thesis is not extra-record evidence and seeks no predetermined outcome. The Court is asked to confront independently the pleaded defence, evidence, reasoning, causation and proportionality issues, identify which propositions survive scrutiny and explain why. Institutional independence includes the capacity to correct first-instance error; it is not deference to it. All other civil, criminal, regulatory and disciplinary rights remain expressly reserved in their proper forums.
The Court is not asked to adopt Por Derecho's public theses, investigate the entire Sun Park history de novo, or consider documents not admitted through a lawful procedural route. An adverse appellate decision would not prove offence, retaliation or capture; a successful appeal would not prove the criminal thesis.
Public criticism of institutional conduct and judicial decisions is compatible with respect for judicial independence. This page excludes threats, personal pressure, advance attribution of criminal conduct, and any suggestion that legal disagreement alone proves bias.
FINITE DOCUMENTARY GAPS
Records still required
- Any judgment or order after the deliberation date, service record, and certification of finality or pending remedies.
- A certified index or copy of the record transmitted to Section 4.
- LPB's exact final appeal brief and principal LexNET receipt.
- Gil's principal LexNET appeal-filing receipt; the located 31 October 2023 receipt records the appeal deposit, not the main brief.
- Opposition or cross-appeal submissions, prosecution submissions, and admission, evidence, transmission or cure decisions.
- An official record or certification of the 25 July 2023 hearing, court-certified integrity/provenance for the three located private recordings, a verifiable transcript, an explanation of the approximate 39-minute interval between VIDEO02 and VIDEO03, counsel-withdrawal material, adjournment request and resulting decision.
Inference rule: absent from the available corpus ≠ absent from the court file; located private copy ≠ court-certified recording; first-instance decision ≠ final judgment; appeal ground ≠ proven fact; scheduling ≠ decision; criticism ≠ criminality.
OTHER APPEAL ROLLS · KEEP SEPARATE
RPL 3304/2025 and RPL 3319/2025
Rolls 3304/2025 and 3319/2025 concern other appeals in Insolvency 36/2012 and were accumulated by a decision dated 15 July 2026. They must not be used to relabel or dilute RPL 2523/2025: 2523/2025 is the culpability appeal. Each roll must be read by its appealed decision, parties, transmitted record and available remedy.