Por Derecho formally alleges that LPB did not validly authorise that abandonment; that it was produced through the Administrator-controlled representation; that its attribution to LPB was false in substance; that it deliberately destroyed a route capable of debt satisfaction or redemption and a successful exit from insolvency; and that it materially benefited CAM and the Acosta Matos perimeter while enabling the alleged wider economic-offence architecture.
Evidence boundary: the 25 January 2018 mandate termination and the 5 March 2018 decree recording a withdrawal in LPB's name are documented. The original pleading, instruction, signature, authority, ratification, purpose and any criminal characterisation require the certified PP 1041/2017 file and competent determination.
Documented: lawyer removal, later filing in LPB’s name, CAM non-opposition and closure. Alleged: lack of authority, false attribution, deliberate detriment, conflict and CAM/Acosta Matos benefit. Pending: pleading, instruction, signature, power, ratification, intent and criminal classification.
20 OCT 2017 → 19 DEC 2017 → 25 JAN 2018 → 15 FEB 2018 → 5 MAR 2018 → 13 MAY 2024
The record now separates four questions with greater precision: whether the credit technically met Article 1535; LPB's route to obtain the transaction economics needed to test that position; who controlled LPB's procedural position after liquidation opened; and what benefit the estate received when an already-admitted judicial route ended by the claimant's own withdrawal.
It is documented that on 25 January 2018 the insolvency administration communicated the termination of Cristo Suárez Pimentel's professional relationship with LPB, requested transfer of representation in PP 1041 and subjected future LPB litigation acts to its authorisation; that the 5 March 2018 decree records that the Decree attributes a withdrawal request to LPB; Por Derecho disputes valid authority, CAM did not oppose and the proceeding was terminated; and that the 13 May 2024 judicial-office order confirmed the file was finalised and archived because of that claimant-side withdrawal. The 5 March decree identifies Francisco Borja Rodríguez Batllori Laffitte as LPB's lawyer and Alejandro Válido Farray as procurador. What remains undocumented is the narrower internal chain: who specifically instructed the withdrawal, who drafted it and who transmitted it.
On 19 December 2017 the court admitted LPB's preliminary measure, found just cause and legitimate interest and ordered production of the deed and price, payment and cost information. Admission did not decide that the credit was legally “litigious”; it did make access to those transaction economics an operative judicial route.
CAM sought recognition as the new holder of the credit. The insolvency administration reported favourably. The 15 February 2018 order recognised the substitution, partially corrected amounts in LPB's favour and rejected LPB's litigious-credit theory.
| Date | Act | Testable effect |
|---|---|---|
| 20 Oct 2017 | PH122 → CAM | Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. is identified as assignor and Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. as assignee of the identified mortgage credits. |
| 12 Dec 2017 | Cristo initiates PP 1041/2017 for LPB | LPB seeks the complete deed, price, payment information and costs in order to assess, among other possibilities, an Article 1535 route. |
| 19 Dec 2017 | Court of First Instance No. 2 admits PP 1041 | LPB obtains a live judicial route to the assignment economics. |
| 19 Dec 2017 | Liquidation opens | The insolvency administration assumes the relevant representation/control functions over LPB under the liquidation framework. |
| 18 Jan 2018 | General lawyer-control instruction | The insolvency administration requires express prior authorisation for lawyers acting for LPB. |
| 25 Jan 2018 | Termination of Cristo's formal LPB mandate | The insolvency administration communicates termination of Cristo's professional relationship with LPB, requests transfer of representation in PP 1041 and orders no future LPB action without its authorisation; the procurador is told not to file pleadings signed by Cristo or other lawyers without AC approval, while necessary acts in PP 1041 are initially carved out. No voluntary resignation by Cristo has been located. |
| 25 Jan 2018 | CAM opposition in PP 1041 | CAM raises, among other matters, the absence of insolvency-administration conformity with LPB's procedural representation. |
| 15 Feb 2018 | Commercial Court order | The court partially corrects amounts in LPB's favour, rejects the litigious-credit theory and recognises CAM. For creditor substitution it expressly relies on the favourable insolvency-administration report and a presumption that the administration verified the necessary requirements. |
| 5 Mar 2018 | LPB withdrawal and termination of PP 1041 | Decree 139/2018 states that the Decree attributes a withdrawal request to LPB; Por Derecho disputes valid authority; CAM did not oppose; the court treated LPB as withdrawn, terminated the proceeding and vacated the 25 April hearing. The intervention table lists Borja as LPB's lawyer and Alejandro Válido Farray as procurador. |
| 13 May 2024 | Judicial confirmation of archive | The later judicial-office order tells Aweswell that PP 1041 is finalised and archived because of the claimant's withdrawal under the 5 March 2018 decree and states that there are no proceedings derived from it. |
Attribution boundary: the judicial acts prove withdrawal filed in LPB's name, termination of the proceeding and the registered representation. They do not, by themselves, identify who internally instructed withdrawal, who drafted the pleading or who physically filed it.
Cristo mandate → direct insolvency-administration intervention → procedural-control change → Borja appears as LPB's lawyer → a withdrawal is filed in LPB's name → PP 1041 is archived.
This supports a stronger but narrower causation conclusion: the insolvency administration directly caused the end of Cristo's formal LPB mandate in this workstream. That is documentary causation on representation. It is not a finding that the insolvency administrator personally drafted or instructed the withdrawal, nor that the intervention had an unlawful purpose.
C5 · DIRECT CAUSATION OF FORMAL-MANDATE END / DOCUMENTED CAM-FAVOURABLE EFFECT
In this sequence the insolvency administration performed two materially connected roles: it supported CAM's creditor recognition and, after liquidation opened, exercised direct control over who could act procedurally for LPB. On 25 January it terminated Cristo's formal LPB mandate; by 5 March the proceeding records Borja as LPB's lawyer and documents withdrawal filed in LPB's name.
The sequence is sufficient to investigate causation, loyalty, conflict and estate benefit. It is not, by itself, proof of collusion, criminality, agreement with CAM or an intention to harm LPB.
The 15 February 2018 order was not uniformly favourable to CAM: it corrected part of the amounts in LPB's favour. It nevertheless rejected LPB's litigious-credit theory and recognised CAM, relying for creditor-substitution verification on the insolvency administration's favourable report.
Controlled reading: the contrast with Court of First Instance No. 2 supports an evidentiary and institutional asymmetry question: LPB obtained a disclosure order to learn the assignment economics, while CAM's recognition rested in part on verification attributed to the insolvency administration. The two courts were addressing different applications, so the contrast is not automatically proof of legal incompatibility or improper bias.
Article 1535 does not make every disputed credit a litigious credit. The 15 February 2018 order reached an LPB-adverse conclusion on that question, which is real counterevidence to any suggestion of a guaranteed winning retracto.
But substantive merits weakness and information value are different questions. The deed, price, payment and costs could remain relevant to debt reconciliation, negotiation, economic reconstruction, assignment analysis and any appeal decision. The current record still lacks the contemporaneous analysis showing why withdrawal was better for the estate.
Cristo Suárez Pimentel: no voluntary resignation has been located. The 25 January 2018 communication documents that the insolvency administration ended his professional relationship with LPB and requested transfer of representation in PP 1041. Cristo continued to work later in the broader Sun Park universe, so end of formal LPB mandate ≠ total departure from the Sun Park matter.
Armando Betancor Álamo: verified as a retained Aweswell adviser in 2019 through a located services/success-fee agreement. Joaquín Ruiz de Infante Abella: verified as a collaborating lawyer in coordinated 2019 work; a separate retainer has not yet been located. Javier and Estefanía Sixto: later review of Promontoria/retracto material is documented; no definitive later conclusion from them on Article 1535 viability or non-viability has yet been located.
The exact pleading that led to the 5 March 2018 decree, including signature, date, filing channel and attachments.
Who decided to withdraw, who gave the instruction, to which lawyer/procurador, and on what estate-interest analysis.
Transfer of representation, power/authority steps, instructions and complete file handover.
Reconsideration/appeal/finality chain for the 15 February 2018 order and any decision not to appeal.
Complete deed, schedules, allocated price, proof of payment and servicing documents.
Check whether an independent Article 1535 substantive action was filed elsewhere; none has yet been located.
This page concerns the 2017–2018 litigious-credit extinguishment/retracto workstream. The project separately preserves any later property/unit-level preferential-acquisition, tanteo or retracto rights. They may share an economic preference logic, but they do not necessarily share holder, limitation period, legal basis, remedy or procedural route.
See the assignment/deed record → See the Acosta Matos perimeter →
Evidence and accountability publication. It distinguishes verified facts, party positions, effect inferences and open questions. It does not declare fraud, collusion, corruption or criminal responsibility.