3 MAY–10 JULY 2019 · ACCESS TO THE PROCEEDING

Clubotel sought to enter the insolvency proceeding to make its participation operative

Daniel Irigoyen acted for Clubotel La Dorada, S.L. in seeking personation and challenging refusal. The court docket identifies Clubotel as an interested party while that challenge was processed.

The distinction that must remain fixed

The personation pleading formalised an acquisition and information-access interest. It must not be said that the pleading, in isolation, offered to pay the final list of claims. Equally, it cannot be severed from the earlier coordinated process: ONA/Clubotel was already integrated into an architecture whose documented objective was to finance payment or consignation to creditors and conclude the proceeding.

What the court record establishes

Clubotel La Dorada sought personation.
Daniel Irigoyen signed or advanced the challenge in its name.
Clubotel explained an interest linked to acquiring Sun Park.
The 2 July 2019 docket identifies it as “Interested”.
The Insolvency Administration opposed or challenged the personation on 10 July.

What the combined record establishes

ONA had signed operating documents before 7 June.
Daniel had taken the exit to the judge and AC in June 2018.
September work sought payment/consignation to all creditors.
ONA was omitted from one draft, not from the real strategy.
Novation, guarantee and conclusion work continued in 2019.

Factual conclusion.

Personation was not an isolated appearance by an unknown competitor. It was the procedural continuation of a commercial and exit relationship already in existence before and after 7 June.

Attribution control.

The exact Clubotel/ONA, Daniel, Carlos, Cuatrecasas, AC and judge-as-reported-by-Daniel lanes are now separated in the ONA documented fact matrix. This allows the broader funded-exit conclusion to be stated strongly without pretending that the personation pleading itself contained every element of the wider strategy.

Allegation and criminal question.

Gil Marer alleges that preventing or neutralising Clubotel's access removed an independent source of evidence, operation, acquisition and finance execution capable of helping pay creditors. Investigation must determine who knew that effect and why exclusion was advanced or maintained.

Limit.

A standing or personation decision may have a legitimate procedural basis. Criminal relevance requires the full application, opposition, ruling, applicable access regime, knowledge of the architecture and comparison with treatment of other interested parties.

Daniel Irigoyen as an evidential bridge

Daniel can authenticate the Clubotel engagement, instructions, relationship with ONA/Nacho Barrau, precise purpose of personation, documents filed, discussions with the Court and AC and the effect of refusal. His contemporary professional emails are evidence; they do not replace the docket or authorise attribution of Gil's criminal conclusion to him.

Unitary record Documented fact matrix Daniel Irigoyen Carlos → AC Cuatrecasas and exit Criminal test