Transaction
Signed operator documentation, ONA plan, due diligence, ECO valuation, a €26m sale/exit route and conditional bridge-finance work.
GAP CLOSURE · 3 SEPTEMBER 2026
ONA funded exit: the missing chain between financing, the hotel facilities and the 24 October 2019 order
The documented exit was not designed around breaking the hotel into isolated liquidation pieces. It combined ONA/Clubotel as operator, funding, payment or consignation of creditors, conclusion of the insolvency proceeding and later refinancing of an intact operating hotel asset.
ALLEGATION ATTRIBUTED TO GIL MARER
Direct and active sabotage of the funded exit
Gil Marer alleges that commissions and omissions of the Insolvency Administrator enabled the CAM/private-actor perimeter and knowingly degraded the conditions needed to pay the debt, conclude the insolvency, preserve the productive unit and permit genuine third-party competition.
Boundary: several underlying acts and effects are documented or were later judicially found; criminal intent, concert and counterfactual certainty of closing are not a conviction or final judicial finding.
Exit architecture
ONA / Clubotel operator → Stoneweg/Varia + capital routes → reliable debt figure → payment/consignation → conclude Concurso 36/2012 → mortgage/refinance → unitary hotel operation
Dependencies
Reliable debt quantum, access, valuation, intact collateral, common hotel facilities and a real ability to compete with CAM.
Not a guaranteed closing
Financier and third-party conditions remained. The evidence establishes a real, advanced architecture, not unconditional drawdown.
The causal chronology previously left in email/files
Documented
Operator + finance + conclusion route
The package expected a signed operator, €26m exit/LOI, ECO valuation, DD and term-sheet work. Daniel Irigoyen described the alternative of paying/consigning all debt while showing the ONA operating plan; Carlos Sanz later reported that the judge was receptive to resolving the insolvency through debt payment.
Contemporaneous account
€13.1m figure accepted as erroneous
Daniel's contemporaneous notes of the AC/judge meetings record the AC accepting that CAM's €13.1m calculation was wrong. Daniel also recorded the AC saying he had not alerted the court when CAM supplied the figure because it was immaterial to him in the dación/liquidation context; Daniel immediately objected that the figure affected third-party bidding.
Procedural fact
Separate sale of locales/pools to CAM
The €400,000 separate transaction over unencumbered hotel operating facilities was formalised. The court was later asked to validate it.
Contemporaneous warning
Daniel warns the AC of damage to both exits
Daniel recorded telling the AC that separating the business unit damaged the entire debt-payment operation and a future auction. He recorded the AC as insisting he was complying with law and as indifferent to the business-unit point. Daniel's further conclusion about an AC/CAM movement remains his attributed assessment, not a judicial finding.
Documented
ONA remained active
ONA/Clubotel continued updating Sun Park operating documentation and sent a further addendum, undermining a simplistic claim that the ONA route had disappeared before the facilities transaction.
Judicial finding
The court confirms the structural defect
The order refused validation of the separate sale. It held that the AC's conduct contradicted the liquidation-plan order and the Provincial Court's interpretation because the disposal was unitary and should have been stayed as a whole. It added that third parties would not improve the offer if the unencumbered hotel installations were excluded and that the operation had been completed without prior judicial authorization and only later reported to the court.
Why the 2019 order is structural self-corroboration
Before: warning
In December 2018 a lawyer working on the exit contemporaneously warned that separating the facilities damaged both payment/conclusion and future competitive bidding.
After: judicial finding
In October 2019 the court independently held that the disposal was unitary and that stripping the unencumbered installations impaired realistic third-party improved offers.
What it does not prove alone
The order did not declare criminal intent or a criminal agreement with CAM. That layer requires actor-specific evidence.
Interference matrix
| Exit dependency | Event | Documented effect / question |
|---|---|---|
| Reliable debt quantum | €13.1m + 26 Sep meeting | The apparent hurdle mattered to finance and bidding; relevance was raised contemporaneously. |
| Intact productive unit | 28 Nov separate sale | The 24 Oct 2019 order later held the sale contradicted the unitary structure. |
| Third-party competition | Facilities removed from the whole | The court said improved bids would not realistically emerge without those installations. |
| Payment/consignation and conclusion | 24 Dec warning | Potential damage was communicated to the AC in real time; intent and total causation remain open. |
| Operator availability | ONA Feb 2019 addendum | The operator workstream continued after the facilities sale. |
Reading rule. Objective interference and a judicially identified structural defect may be stated where supported. Deliberate sabotage, concert and criminality remain attributed allegations and proof questions pending competent adjudication.