CONTROLLED JUDICIAL-ASSISTANCE BRIDGE · PRE-7-JUNE REQUEST / POST-7-JUNE KNOWLEDGE
Arrecife ↔ Mercantile Court nº1
The record must keep two propositions separate: the Mercantile Court did respond to the pre-7-June exhorto; the content of that response has not yet been located. Separately, the 7-June takeover allegations generated a new notice/protection sequence.
INCIDENT-BY-INCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION
Existence is known; content and post-takeover treatment remain evidence questions
Arrecife issues exhorto to Mercantile Court nº1
The judicial-assistance request predates the 7-June physical-control event. It must not be retrospectively treated as a request about facts that had not yet happened.
Alleged takeover / seizure and urgent-protection sequence
The affected parties allege a takeover by force, with same-day criminal amplification and a protection dossier circulating to the Insolvency Administrator and legal advisers. Those allegations require actor-specific forensic testing; they are not converted here into adjudicated criminal findings.
“He llamado a Borja…”
Juan Tomás Parrilla records that he called Borja and relays Borja's account. The material question is therefore no longer generic knowledge, but what the Insolvency Administrator subsequently verified, reported, protected, filed and accounted for.
Article 176 conclusion route / intention
For a June-2018 event the historical reference is former Ley Concursal Article 176. TRLC Article 465.6 is later numbering and must not be projected backwards as if it governed the 2018 event.
Arrecife receives Mercantile Court nº1's response
The response existence is controlled. [CONTENT MISSING]: the actual response and annexes have not yet been located in the controlled corpus. Their wording, scope, preparation date and whether they contained anything about 7 June must not be reconstructed by inference.
Response joined to DP 1132/2018
The Arrecife Auto incorporates the Mercantile response into the criminal proceeding. This corrects any earlier inference that Mercantile Court nº1 ignored Arrecife.
Daniel Irigoyen meets judge and Insolvency Administrator
This event belongs to the funded-exit chronology and must be read together with, but not conflated with, the separate judicial-assistance response.
Mercantile communication contemplated; filing receipt not located
Cuatrecasas accepted that Mercantile should be informed, and Rosa Gual said the relevant pleading had already been prepared. The decisive formalisation evidence remains open.
EVIDENCE LEGEND
What the two gap labels mean
[CONTENT MISSING] means the underlying content is not yet located and must not be reconstructed by inference.
FORMAL FILING RECEIPT NOT LOCATED means no LexNET receipt/court stamp has yet been located in the controlled corpus. It does not prove that no filing occurred.
Mandatory non-inference
A response to the 2-May pre-7-June exhorto cannot be presumed to address the 7-June events. The response must be recovered before its content or effect is attributed.
UNITARY / BIDIRECTIONAL LINKS
Read this bridge with every connected track
These links support reconstruction; they do not transfer knowledge, intent or liability between actors or proceedings.
FORMAL ISOLATION
3205/2014^ is a different Arrecife file
Open its bilingual primary-source, translation and authority record → It does not form part of this 2018 Arrecife–Mercantile bridge. No located source establishes joinder, transformation, inhibition, appeal or another formal link with DP 1132/2018, DP 332/2014, Auto 804/2018 or Insolvency 36/2012.