PH122 HOLDER · HAYA SERVICER/INTERLOCUTOR · CERBERUS CONTEXT · CAJA INSULAR/BFA/BANKIA UPSTREAM
LPB's restructuring proposals reached Haya, were examined against criteria attributed to the holder and Haya communicated a rejection by “the creditor.” Haya also identified interlocutors described as Cerberus and Bankia. This supports receipt, evaluation and communication; it does not yet establish who decided or Cerberus capacity, ownership or control.
The issue is no longer whether the workout reached the creditor perimeter. It did. The unresolved issue is who decided, under what mandate and committee authority, on what information, for what reason, and with what foreseeable effect on LPB's ability to refinance, exit insolvency or preserve estate value.
PUBLIC-SOURCE REVIEW · 27 OCTOBER 2026
The historic commercial-credit chain requires three separate assessments: the original lender's conduct and retained obligations; the conduct and authority of each later holder, servicer or adviser; and the jurisdiction of the body asked to review that conduct. A sale of a credit, corporate succession and a servicing mandate are different events. Each requires its own documents and applicable law.
Its complaints procedure is open to legal persons using supervised banking services, subject to eligibility and prior complaint requirements. A commercial company still needs an actor-specific review of standing, dates and the relevant banking conduct.
The external reporting channel concerns possible breaches by supervised entities or unauthorised reserved activities. It requires a supported regulatory issue. The Bank expressly distinguishes this channel from individual product or service complaints.
The ECB breach-reporting route covers EU prudential banking law within its competence, including relevant governance and internal controls. Its platform excludes consumer-protection and anti-money-laundering implementation matters. A private loan dispute does not establish a prudential breach.
The investor-complaints route is relevant only where the product, service and entity fall within its remit. Any swap-related issue needs that classification first. CNMV reports are nonbinding and do not award damages; an identified investment-service issue does not transfer the entire mortgage dispute to CNMV.
The FCA's published perimeter places much commercial lending, including lending to limited companies, outside its remit. A UK company address or a group's regulated affiliate does not establish FCA jurisdiction over this Spanish commercial credit. The exact entity, activity, period and permission must be tested.
The SEC's tips framework concerns possible violations of US federal securities laws. A route involving an investment adviser needs facts connecting the identified entity and conduct to that framework. The Cerberus brand or a Spanish debt assignment alone does not establish that connection.
Cerberus describes its European servicing platform publicly. That description provides organisational context; a case-specific review still needs the actual principal, mandate, decision authority and record custodian. Internal compliance review, regulatory jurisdiction and adjudicated liability each require their own basis. No group-wide responsibility follows from a shared name.
Continue to retained and downstream liability → Read the separate CaixaBank claim →
Official public sources reviewed on 27 October 2026. This dated addition preserves the historical correspondence chronology and its proof limits below. Corrective and exculpatory primary evidence remains relevant.
Haya stated that the proposal had been analysed during a weekly conference. A one-year standstill did not fit the debt holder's criteria; the remaining options required more detail on amounts, timetables and proposed investors.
What this proves: actual evaluation against creditor criteria. What it leaves open: participants, principal, committee authority, documents considered and reasons.
Cuatrecasas had presented a proposal as destined for Haya or Cerberus. Haya first requested a signed borrower version and supplied its delivery address; the next day it stated that the terms had been rejected by “the creditor” and that execution was no longer needed.
What this proves: a rejection decision existed and travelled through Haya. What it leaves open: the identity and authority of the decision-maker, the reasoning and whether alternatives were compared.
LPB sent Haya the Bankia current-account/SWAP items, PH122's two mortgages, prior Bankia and PH122/Cerberus offers, the convenio and viability plan, and the stated UK proposal of €5 million immediate payment plus terms for the balance. Haya identified the Cerberus interlocutors and separately undertook to provide the Bankia contact.
What this proves: direct knowledge of the credit and workout architecture and operational routing of both lanes. What it does not prove: common legal personality or automatic cross-liability.
| Actor / lane | Capacity to prove | Strongest present proposition | Missing allocation record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caja Insular / BFA / Bankia | Caja Insular / La Caja de Canarias: contractual originator; BFA: intermediate successor to document; Bankia: documented administration and enforcement | Origination/product conduct must be allocated to Caja Insular; later account, default, acceleration and enforcement conduct to the actor that performed it. Succession does not itself prove direct origination conduct by BFA or Bankia. | Native files and Caja Insular→BFA→Bankia→SAREB deeds/schedules. |
| SAREB | transferee | Transferred the actual credit and included accessories—not a newly invented asset. | Complete instrument, schedule, balance, warranties and payment. |
| PH122 | documented holder | Held the mortgage credits during the 2015–2017 workout window. The economics, decision-makers and concrete benefit of each decision require the transaction and governance record. | LSAP, ownership/governance records, committee, economics and instructions. |
| Haya | documented servicer/interlocutor | Received the workout, communicated criteria and rejection, and identified interlocutors described as Cerberus and Bankia. It is not asserted to have been holder or decision-maker. | Servicing agreement, powers, delegation, employer and reporting line. |
| Cerberus | mentioned context; capacity not established | Was identified in communications as creditor-side context. That does not prove ownership of PH122, mandate, control, instruction, decision, ratification or benefit. | Fund/ownership chart, committee authority, instructions, ratification and benefit. |
| CAM | assignee from 20 October 2017 | Acquired the creditor position after the documented workout history and then pursued its own debt/valuation/dación route. | Complete transaction file, due diligence, disclosures and warranties. |
Original mortgage/refinancing terms, SWAP or hedging product, pledged funds, disclosures and linked obligations.
Payments, settlements, charges, account application, default, acceleration, enforcement and instructions.
What moved to SAREB and PH122, what remained personal to the originator/successor, and how the Valencia proceeding affects the lane.
A later assignee does not automatically inherit every personal Bankia liability. But the assigned credit remains dependent on its true originating amount, payments, defences and security.
SAREB→PH122 LSAP/policy; complete asset schedule; allocated price; payment; adjustments; warranties.
Haya servicing agreement; powers; delegations; reporting line; committee charter; employer identity.
Weekly-conference packs and minutes; rejection record; participants; questions; counterproposals; reasons; comparison of alternatives.
PH122→CAM data room, due diligence, disclosures, warranties, communications and any side arrangements.
By April 2015 Haya said the LPB workout was being analysed in a weekly forum. In May 2016 Haya communicated rejection by “the creditor.” In May 2017 it identified interlocutors described as Cerberus and separately undertook to provide the Bankia contact.
Por Derecho retains the burden of substantiating its assertions and, in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt. The mandate and decision-file request is a finite production request to identify who exercised power over the credit, why proposed exits were rejected and whether legally attributable harm resulted. Non-production does not reverse the burden, is not an admission and does not require anyone to prove innocence.
Status: primary correspondence supports receipt, communicated evaluation and routing. It does not itself prove Haya decision capacity, Cerberus ownership/control, unlawful purpose, group-wide liability or a criminal agreement. Corrective and exculpatory primary records are invited.