Perimeter
Which properties, common areas, rights, litigation, encumbrances and third-party assets each valuation included.
INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · COMMUNITY · CAM · RICPE/RIC · HNT · REGIONAL INCENTIVE · ERDF · MYND
The same hotel, assets and works: multiple financial lives.
Project Sun Rock does not merely say that different funding sources coexisted. It alleges that the Sun Park/MYND Yaiza hotel and substantially overlapping economic bases — assets, refurbishment, costs, value and employment — may have been used repeatedly before different decision-makers while most of the identified property perimeter remained within Insolvency 36/2012 and other integrated property remained outside it.
SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATION · NOT A JUDICIAL OR AUDIT FINDING
Project Sun Rock alleges possible double or triple funding and multiple parallel lives of the same hotel project. The record already establishes fragmented title, RICPE’s internal knowledge in July 2021, later RIC finance, the regional incentive and ERDF identification. What must now be produced and reconciled is whether the same assets, works, invoices, jobs, value or availability were used more than once, what each institution received and who allowed the project to progress despite unresolved prerequisites.
The structural contradiction
Controlled fact
Legally fragmented title
RICPE’s internal certification of 20 July 2021 described 262 properties: 54 CAM, 190 LPB and 18 third-party. It also recorded future/conditional CAM title, an unsigned LOI and full due diligence not yet begun.
Controlled fact
Economically unitary project
The same location was presented, refurbished, financed and later operated as an integrated hotel. Economic unity does not erase individual title; legal fragmentation does not deny that the same refurbishment and operating capacity may have supported several applications.
Audit rule: keep LPB, Matkator, third parties, CAM, HNT and each instrument legally separate; then reconcile them economically property by property, work by work, invoice by invoice, job by job and euro by euro.
The 20–21 July 2021 documentary bridge
1 · RICPEInternal knowledge of 54/190/18 and conditionality.
2 · CAMFiles the certification in the insolvency on 21 July.
3 · InsolvencyThe document enters LPB’s court record.
4 · ReactivationIdentify what document overcame withdrawal/incomplete DD.
5 · Finance/supportRIC, regional incentive, ERDF and later operation.
Central question: for what procedural purpose did CAM file the certification, who authorised its use, what did the Insolvency Administrator and Court do with it, and how was its narrower content reconciled before the same hotel was reactivated, financed and publicly supported?
The financial lives requiring reconciliation
| Life | Amount / basis | Current status | Question that cannot be fragmented |
|---|---|---|---|
| LPB / Insolvency 36/2012 | 190 of 262 identified properties; estate value, income and realisation | Controlled | What refurbishment, finance and operating opportunity belonged to the estate, and what external commitments affected that value? |
| Matkator and third parties | 18 third-party properties in the certification; further extraconcursal rights to map | Controlled / incomplete | Were they physically or economically included in works, valuation, finance, support or operation without title, consent, exclusion or compensation? |
| Community · November 2018 | Alleged approximately €4.5m full-refurbishment layer | Specific allegation | Who proposed and approved it, which properties/works did it cover, who paid and what was disclosed to the IA/Court? |
| CAM / valuation | Project-record allegation of approximately €9.77m | Native source/use to link | What perimeter and assumptions did it use, and what higher/post-works value supported an approximately €11–12m investment? |
| RICPE / investor project | 2020 presentation; participating-loan/project and approximately €11–12m investment requirement | Existence controlled | Which prerequisites were met, omitted, deferred or waived, and who authorised each progression? |
| RICPE / HNT · 20-Sep-2023 prospectus | Works €1,598,849.78 + employment €4,971,863.78 = €6,570,713.56 | Source-specific total | What exactly did each component finance, and how does it map to invoices, assets and employment? |
| RICPE / HNT · separate audited-accounts reconstruction | Series F €1,598,849.32 + Series G €4,974,853.78 = €6,573,703.10; difference from prospectus €2,989.54 | Reconciliation open | The difference may have a legitimate accounting/date/classification explanation. It must not be silently normalised. Open Series F/G control → |
| GC/836/P06 | €11,469,714 investment; €3,440,914.20 subsidy; 60 jobs | Published award | Which costs were eligible, what other finance was declared and how was cumulation/overlap controlled? |
| RICPE June 2023 / employment | Alleged approximately €4.9m and about 86 jobs | Native reconciliation pending | Is it a component of the €6.573m total, another metric or instrument; does it overlap with the same jobs/costs in GC/836/P06? |
| ERDF | ERDF expressly identified on MYND’s permanent plaque | Fund identified | What percentage, amount, expenditure, certification, payment, verification and cumulation rule applied? |
| Current MYND | Current use, revenue, value, workforce and operating capacity | Current operation | Which properties, works and support now generate rooms, services, revenue and value? |
The missing control chain
Sun Park requires reconstruction of RICPE’s normal project protocol and a stage-by-stage comparison with what actually happened:
OriginationWho introduced and sponsored the project.
AdmissibilityPromoter, title, capacity and minimum documents.
Due diligenceLegal, technical, financial, valuation and ownership.
GovernanceConflicts, recusals, committee, board and conditions.
MoneyWaivers, drawdown, use, monitoring and correction.
It is not enough to say CAM failed a prerequisite. The record must identify who had to check it, who knew of the deficiency, who could stop the project, whether a valid waiver existed and how the matter crossed into the next stage.
Each departure must be classified as: documented authorised waiver, control failure or unresolved evidential gap. A “blind eye” finding requires proof of knowledge, duty, ability to act and conscious inaction.
Valuation: €9.77m versus an €11–12m requirement
The allegation cannot be resolved by a generic banking rule. Every valuation must be produced and the economic bridge explained:
Current / post-works value
Existing-condition value, capex, completed value, income, occupancy and sensitivity.
Finance structure
Equity, participating loan, RIC, grant, ERDF, bank finance, guarantees and instrument conditions.
The correct question: what valuation, post-refurbishment value, equity contribution, security or additional support enabled an investment exceeding the alleged approximately €9.77m concurso-context value, and was that basis consistent before every recipient?
60 jobs, about 86 and an alleged operating need of about 50 FTE
Adding headlines without definitions would be wrong. The reconciliation must identify employees and periods:
60
The published GC/836/P06 commitment. Establish whether these were net, new, maintained, FTE, temporary or another metric.
≈86
The alleged June-2023 RICPE figure. Recover the native source and compare person by person and period by period.
≈50 FTE
Project Sun Rock’s alleged operating requirement. Test it through payroll, Social Security, rosters, departments and outsourcing.
Duplication allegation: if the same workers, contracts, FTEs or payroll costs supported more than one finance or support instrument, that must be identified and quantified. If the metrics were different, produce the definition that makes them compatible.
Inside and outside Insolvency 36/2012
Insolvency plane
What the IA and Court knew about refurbishment, investor presentation, finance, incentive and operation; what authority they exercised; what value and opportunity belonged to LPB.
Extraconcursal plane
Which Matkator and third-party rights were used, refurbished, valued, financed or operated; under what title, consent, exclusion or compensation.
One economically integrated hotel can contain property inside and outside an insolvency. Unity does not turn third-party property into estate property; fragmentation does not prevent investigation of whether the same unitary hotel repeatedly supported finance.
Orion: a separate branch; for Sun Park, one specific FMMM question
RICPE founded Orion and the issue document describes RICPE financing architecture. Those corporate facts remain on the Orion record. But Orion is not presented as Sun Park’s next financial life without a specific patrimonial bridge.
The Sun Park question is this: how did FMMM move from a paid property-administrator role in the Sun Park/Community environment — with duties of advice, diligence, warning, information and protection — into the later Pamalexsha/AGM/Orion perimeter, who facilitated that transition and what relevance does it have to his knowledge, independence, incentives or conflicts?
No responsibility is attributed to Orion, JDAM, Shaila, Antonio or anyone else by association. Each act, knowledge, duty and benefit must be proved individually.
What can prove or refute the allegation
Assets and valuation
Properties/CRUs, title, valuations, instructions, current/post-works value, security and exclusions.
Money and costs
Contracts, approvals, drawdowns, banks, invoices, works certificates, eligible expenditure and other-aid declarations.
Employment and controls
Definitions, employees/FTE, payroll, Social Security, files, minutes, conflicts, recusals, conditions and waivers.
Required outcome: one table of assets, instruments, invoices, employment, valuations, declarations and decisions. If there was no overlap, that table should prove it. If overlap existed, it must identify amount, actors, recipients, corrections and remedies.
The public RIC route: systemic connection, no proved flow
The Canary Government's 2024 and 2025 issues raised €250m through RIC-eligible bonds. They are parallel to RICPE: the routes share the RIC regime, but not issuer, recipient or money. No flow from those bonds to HNT / MYND Yaiza is established, and by date they cannot be the origin of the 2022–2023 HNT loans. A subscriber cross-match with the Acosta Matos perimeter remains open because the production is dissociated.