SEPARATE PROCEDURAL OBJECT · AC CLAIM · CONTRACT-TERMINATION LANE
Piece 8 / 2012 · AC v LPB / Monterecco
Controlled identity: Pz Incidente concursal Resolución contrato por incumplimiento (Art 62 LC). The located primary judgment is dated 24 November 2015.
What the Piece is
A separate insolvency incident brought by the insolvency administration against Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB) and Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. concerning termination for breach of a lease/contract affecting specified Sun Park assets.
How it was opened
The claimant, defendants, procedural classification and located judgment are controlled. The complete initiating filing, filing date/receipt and opening judicial act are NOT LOCATED IN THE PRESENT CONTROLLED CORPUS as a certified public Piece 8 set.
All parties
Located: the Insolvency Administration as claimant; Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB) and Monterecco Sun Park, S.L. as defendants; Mercantile Court nº1. The complete list of procuradores, lawyers and all procedural participants must be taken from the certified docket, not inferred here.
The “Comunidad” / authority
No Community role is imported into Piece 8. A material “Comunidad” personación or general Community authority instrument has NOT BEEN LOCATED in the controlled Piece 8 sources used for this page. Any future Community reference must identify the exact actor, body, authority and effect.
Claims / fees / amounts
The controlled judgment summary records €2,733,923.64, plus interest/future rent and costs, together with termination and vacating/eviction relief. The amount does not replace threshold questions concerning contract identity, assets, parties, authority, accrual and enforcement.
Court treatment
The located judgment of 24 November 2015 granted the insolvency administration’s termination claim, ordered the controlled vacating/eviction relief, and recorded the stated monetary consequence. The exact operative wording and asset perimeter remain governed by the primary judgment.
AC treatment
The AC was the claimant in this Piece. That role must be distinguished from later AC knowledge, protection, access, Community or 2018 conduct. One successful Piece 8 claim does not answer later authority or estate-protection questions.
Criminal / forensic relevance
Piece 8 is relevant to powers, control, asset perimeter, contractual rights, possession and the later factual question of who exercised control over LPB and third-party property. It is not itself proof of later de facto administration, procedural fraud or criminal intent.
Gaps
Complete initiating claim and receipt; powers/personaciones; all annexes; full notification/enforcement trail; exact asset-by-asset implementation; appeals/finality record where not already controlled; and a certified Piece 8 index.
Separately addressable incident
^ DATE — 24 NOVEMBER 2015 (located judgment)^ INCIDENT — Piece 8 judgment granting AC contract-termination claim^ ALL ACTORS/PARTIES — Insolvency Administration; LPB; Monterecco Sun Park, S.L.; Court; counsel/procuradores only when certified^ SOURCE — primary judgment identified in controlled procedural taxonomy^ CLAIMED AUTHORITY — AC statutory/procedural claimant capacity; precise underlying filing and powers remain source-governed^ PROCEDURAL STATUS — claim granted in located judgment; complete later docket not certified by this page^ WHAT HAPPENED — termination, vacating/eviction and monetary relief were ordered as controlled^ WHAT THE RECORD PROVES — Piece 8 is distinct from Piece 7 and from later Community/control incidents^ WHAT IS ALLEGED — later misuse/overreach/de facto-control theories must be proved independently^ CRIMINAL / FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE — establishes a relevant asset/control baseline, not later criminal liability^ CONTRARY EVIDENCE — judgment itself and any implementation/enforcement record must be weighed^ MISSING EVIDENCE — complete docket, filing receipt, powers, annexes, implementation and finality chain^ CROSS-LINKS — court record; authority matrix; shadow administration; Arrecife bridge