COUNSEL HISTORY CORRECTION · INSIDE + OUTSIDE THE INSOLVENCY
Luis Miguel López Gómez: what was actually filed, preserved and pursued?
The located record changes an important explanatory premise. Former LPB counsel cannot accurately be reduced to “they did not challenge the liquidation”. Under Luis Miguel López Gómez (ICAM 71.483), LPB repeatedly challenged the calculation inputs, treatment of earlier filings, auction/adjudication mechanics and access to appellate review.
Located / identifiable filing-remedy lineage
| # | Date / forum | Filing or remedy | Controlled status | Principal significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 Dec 2020 · JM1 · S05 | Allegations on CAM interest calculation | LexNET receipt 1202010372434856 | Challenged timing/finality of interest input used in liquidation/bid mechanics. |
| 2 | 1 Dec 2020 · JM1 · S05 | Allegations on AC / Community claims | LexNET receipt 1202010372438581 | Placed the AC/Community calculation issue formally before the court. |
| 3 | Jan/Feb 2021 · JM1 | Reposición against Auto 25 Jan 2021 | Filed; later court disposition confirms. Exact receipt still to isolate. | Expressly alleged both 1-Dec filings had been ignored “as if they simply did not exist”; invoked incongruencia omisiva and challenged interest/Community inputs. |
| 4 | Feb 2021 · JM1 | Exceptional nullity incident — 2019/2020 liquidation-order family | Filed/admitted; exact receipt/final version pending | Article 24, patent error, reasoning/exhaustiveness and legality of the direct-realisation route. |
| 5 | 19 May 2021 · JM1 | Protesta preserving objections | Later filed pleading recites prior filing | Preserved issues for later appeal. |
| 6 | 24 May 2021 · JM1 | Reposición against Providencia 12 May | Filed; later disposition confirms. Receipt pending. | Challenged in-person licitación against quoted plan safeguards: BOE Portal, 20 days, publicity/current data and deposits. |
| 7 | 31 May 2021 · JM1 | Reposición against Auto 18 May | Filed; later disposition confirms. Receipt pending. | Core plan-compliance objection: third-party bidder notice/offer, CAM improvement/deposit, absence of plan-compliant auction and definitive CAM approval. |
| 8 | 8 Jun 2021 · JM1 → AP | Appeal against Auto 6 May | Filed; later inadmission/Queja confirms | Carried the omitted-filings, maxima, Community, overvaluation, loss-of-opportunity and par-conditio issues toward higher review. |
| 9 | 22 Jun 2021 · TC | First located constitutional amparo, RA 4268/2021 | Filed; TC proceeding and later inadmission located | Constitutional exhaustion/access-to-review track. |
| 10 | 5 Jul 2021 · JM1 | Allegations on publicity / market interference | Source + filing receipt located; exact receipt metadata still being folded into canonical register | Requested AC report, protection against transfer pending review and reopening with plan safeguards; reserved civil/criminal action. |
| 11 | 7 Jul 2021 · AP | Queja 740/2021 | Filed copy located; AP outcome located | Sought appellate fiscalización of definitive liquidation acts; AP 16-Nov-2021 later became part of the appealability lineage. |
| 12 | 20 Jul 2021 · JM1 | Allegations / new-document production | Source copy located; formal receipt to reconcile | Asked the court to consider new material affecting sale/subasta and to revisit the route with plan safeguards. |
| 13 | 2 Jan 2022 · JM1 | Protesta preserving objections | Later filed pleading recites prior filing | Preservation for later appeal. |
| 14 | 4 Feb 2022 · JM1 · S05 | Protesta against 26-Jan clarification Autos | Sent LexNET 202210466939566 · ack 1202210466939566 | Expressly preserved disagreement and announced direct/deferred appeal. |
| 15 | 28 Feb 2022 · JM1 → AP | Appeal — two 15-Oct-2021 Autos and preserved earlier decisions | LexNET 202210473582179 · hash 094fbdbd… | Principal attempted merits-review bridge for the May/Oct liquidation sequence. |
| 16 | 28 Mar 2022 · AP Sec.4 | Queja 375/2022 | Filed copy + later AP proceeding located | Expressly argued that liquidation acts contrary to plan-approval orders must be reviewable and that de facto plan change should not evade formal modification. |
| 17 | 16 Jan 2023 · AP Sec.4 | Exceptional nullity incident — Queja 375/2022 | Sent 202310547846140 · ack 1202310547846140 | Continued Article 24 / access-to-review challenge after Queja dismissal. |
| 18 | 2023 · TC | Second constitutional amparo, 2811/2023 | Petition + TC proceeding/inadmission located | Explicitly preserved the May-2021 auction/adjudication and reviewability questions through constitutional exhaustion. |
| 19 | 2 Nov 2023 · calificación | LPB appeal against judgment 163/2023 | Counsel contemporaneously confirmed filing; exact LPB appeal/receipt not yet located in reviewed thread | Do not misattribute the Gil/Pink appeals that were mistakenly re-sent in that email chain. Recover LPB's native appeal before publishing its substantive grounds. |
Why this matters to the judge/LAJ analysis
The primary chronology demonstrates that the plan-compliance and review-access issues were raised repeatedly before the eventual outcome. That strengthens a knowledge/notice inquiry. It does not prove that the judge or LAJ deliberately concealed anything, or that every submission was legally well-founded. The next question is what the court and LAJ actually did with each filing and whether the available appellate route ever produced merits review of the definitive-adjudication objections.
Former counsel: neither blanket excuse nor scapegoat
An adverse outcome is not proof that counsel failed. A filed pleading is not proof that counsel exhausted the best available strategy. Every team must be audited using the same chain: mandate → knowledge → advice → draft → filing → receipt → evidence supplied → remedy → court/LAJ response → further challenge → outcome → strategic alternative.
Accordingly, possible shortcomings by former lawyers remain open, but they must be measured against the filings they actually made and the procedural environment they encountered.
Current Sixto representation
The later Sixto representation should be described by documented method rather than comparative rhetoric. The located record supports a more source-controlled, issue-separated sequence including formal substitution, document packs, AC-removal/fees work, access/information requests and later procedural analysis. Each Sixto filing should be subjected to the same receipt → decision → challenge → implementation test. No public page should imply that current counsel automatically adopts every Por Derecho allegation.
Machine register and next recovery objects
Full machine-readable filing inventory → · Controlling counsel/judge/LAJ governance →
P0 recovery remains: missing native receipts for the Jan/Feb-May/Jul-2021 families; native 19-May-2021 and 2-Jan-2022 protest filings; AP receipts for both Quejas; exact LPB 2-Nov-2023 calificación appeal; and reconciliation against the certified chronological/per-piece docket.