SEPARATE PROCEDURAL OBJECT · DO NOT BLEND INTO GENERIC CONCURSO NARRATIVE
Piece 7 / 2012 · LPB v Garrigues
Controlled identity: Pz Incidente concursal impugnación inventario/lista de acreedores (Art 96.4). The located primary judgment is dated 1 April 2016.
What the Piece is
An insolvency incident in which Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB) challenged Garrigues Abogados y Asesores Tributarios’s treatment in the inventory/creditor-list lane. The controlled governance records that LPB sought exclusion of Garrigues ordinary/subordinated claims and advanced allegations concerning simulation/falsity/absence of real services.
How it was opened
The procedural classification and parties are controlled. The precise initiating filing date, complete initiating document, LexNET receipt and opening judicial act are NOT LOCATED IN THE PRESENT CONTROLLED CORPUS for purposes of this public reconstruction.
All parties
Located: Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB) as challenger; Garrigues Abogados y Asesores Tributarios as affected creditor/professional-services claimant; Mercantile Court nº1 and the insolvency proceeding as institutional perimeter. The complete date-resolved list of procuradores, lawyers and every institutional participant is not yet certified here.
The “Comunidad” / authority
No Community role is inferred into Piece 7. A material “Comunidad” intervention, representation or standing instrument has NOT BEEN LOCATED in the controlled Piece 7 sources used here. If a later primary docket shows one, it must be added actor-by-actor under the authority-before-arithmetic rule.
Claims / amounts
The credit dispute must be kept separate from authority and source-of-obligation questions. No amount is allowed to substitute for proof of the claimant, services, underlying obligation, classification and standing.
Court treatment
The located judgment of 1 April 2016 dismissed LPB’s challenge and made no costs order because of doubts recorded in the controlled governance summary. The full ratio must be read from the primary judgment; this page does not enlarge it.
AC treatment
The complete AC submission/evaluation chain within Piece 7 is NOT LOCATED as a certified docket set on this page and remains a production target.
Criminal / forensic relevance
The affected parties’ allegations concerning simulation/falsity/absence of services remain allegations, not findings of criminal liability. Forensic review must identify the exact invoice/claim, service evidence, knowledge, representation, reliance, classification effect, contrary explanation and any patrimonial consequence before testing a criminal theory.
Gaps
Initiating filing and receipt; opening order; full powers/personaciones; complete annexes; AC position; all notifications; any appeal/finality record not already controlled; and a certified Piece 7 index.
Separately addressable incident
^ DATE — 1 APRIL 2016 (located judgment)^ INCIDENT — Piece 7 judgment on LPB challenge to Garrigues inventory/credit-list treatment^ ALL ACTORS/PARTIES — LPB; Garrigues; Court; AC only to the extent evidenced by the underlying docket^ SOURCE — primary judgment identified in controlled procedural taxonomy^ CLAIMED AUTHORITY — creditor/professional-services claim; exact underlying mandate/services require source proof^ PROCEDURAL STATUS — challenge dismissed; certified complete subsequent docket not established by this page^ WHAT THE RECORD PROVES — a separate Piece 7 existed and the located judgment dismissed LPB’s challenge^ WHAT IS ALLEGED — simulation/falsity/absence-of-services theories advanced by affected party^ CRIMINAL / FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE — test representations and service/credit provenance; do not convert allegation into finding^ CONTRARY EVIDENCE — dismissal and any service/mandate evidence in primary record must be weighed^ MISSING EVIDENCE — complete docket, powers, filings, receipts, annexes, AC chain^ CROSS-LINKS — court record; authority matrix; criminal map; Arrecife bridge