# CaixaBank defence — PO 1859/2023-9 — Uría / LPB insolvency source note

Source date: 29 January 2024  
Proceeding: **Procedimiento Ordinario 1859/2023-9 — Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 27 de Valencia**  
Defendant: **CaixaBank, S.A.**  
Recovered connected-source filename: `CONTESTACION.pdf`  
Current connected-source SHA-256: `abbaf13c655058635fbd37395ad2e8699c1c91918b6ef75c8a07b90b9b97b73b`  
Current connected-source size: 941,946 bytes  
Legacy #1446 fingerprint retained for reconciliation: `e9cfcc7f364939bab3c796dde132ccc28e7b42e3b98470436af0e4e56eca9669`  
Status: **PRIMARY LITIGATION DOCUMENT — PARTY ADVOCACY / DEFENCE POSITION, NOT A JUDICIAL FINDING**

## Binary-integrity control

The connected Gmail attachment recovered and re-hashed on 4 September 2026 produces `abbaf13c…`. That same fingerprint is already registered in the repository's pre-existing `uria-ricpe-caixabank-source-register-20260904.js` for the 47-page public raw defence. The older #1446 manifest contained a different fingerprint, `e9cfcc7f…`, for a file with the same display filename. The matching legacy binary has not been re-located during this pass. Do not conflate the fingerprints or assume byte identity. See `SOURCE_INTEGRITY_RECONCILIATION_04SEP2026.md`.

## Counsel identified in the defence

Page 1 identifies the legal direction as:

- **Raimon Tagliavini Sansa**
- **David García Martín**

Both are identified in the defence as counsel for CaixaBank. This source therefore establishes the 2024 CaixaBank/Uría litigation footprint; it does not itself establish any conflict arising from earlier Uría work.

## How the defence enters the LPB / Concurso 36/2012 record

The defence does not merely address the 2008 financial instruments in isolation. It expressly relies on the insolvency history of **Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.** and the record of the **Administración Concursal**.

### Page 1 — preliminary exceptions

The defence advances, among other points:

- lack of Aweswell Limited's standing under insolvency legislation; and
- a **res judicata / cosa juzgada** argument based on credits recognised in the LPB insolvency record, including the hedging derivative.

This is a litigation position advanced for CaixaBank, not a finding by the Valencia court.

### Pages 3–8 — standing and the AC record

The defence states that LPB was declared insolvent in **Concurso Ordinario 36/2012** before Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. It then relies upon the Administrador Concursal report to dispute Aweswell/Monterecco Sun Park Limited's creditor status and to delimit the scope of the action said to have been authorised by the insolvency administration.

### Pages 9–11 — recognised credit / preclusion argument

The defence identifies the lender succession in the relevant credit discussion as **Caja Canarias → Bankia → CaixaBank**, refers to the credit recognised in the Administrador Concursal report/textos definitivos, and argues that the recognised credit should have preclusive / res judicata effect against the later challenge.

Again, this records **CaixaBank's pleaded legal position**. Whether that position succeeds, and the precise legal effect of the insolvency list/textos definitivos, are matters for the court.

## Proposition matrix

| Proposition | Status | What the source proves | What it does not prove |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tagliavini and García Martín acted for CaixaBank in the 2024 defence | PRIMARY DOCUMENTED | names counsel in the defence itself | wider historical mandate or conflict |
| The 2024 defence expressly relies on Concurso 36/2012 | PRIMARY DOCUMENTED | the defence repeatedly invokes LPB insolvency procedure and record | that every asserted consequence is legally correct |
| The defence relies materially on the AC report / recognised credits | PRIMARY DOCUMENTED | the report/list are used for standing and res judicata arguments | independent truth of every statement in the AC report |
| CaixaBank's lawyers treated the LPB insolvency record as important evidence/argument | PRIMARY DOCUMENTED | repeated pleaded reliance is visible in the source | improper reliance, conflict or confidential-information use |

## Link to the wider Uría chronology

Read only as a chronology, not as proof of wrongdoing:

1. **2015:** contemporaneous LPB/Sun Park correspondence reports Uría involvement in the creditor/enforcement perimeter and a separate reported AC–Javier Rubio Sanz contact; the same 2015 record contains counter-evidence against assuming a HAYA mandate at that date.
2. **2017:** primary court material records Uría lawyers for Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. inside Concurso 36/2012.
3. **2019–2021:** public/primary materials document Uría as legal adviser within the RICPE structure and Sun Park within the RICPE/CAM project history, subject to important due-diligence-stage qualifications.
4. **2024:** this defence records Uría lawyers acting for CaixaBank and expressly relying on the LPB insolvency / AC record.
5. **2026:** a recovered Control 21 version seeks production of Uría/PwC/adviser material about Sun Park 2020–2021.

## Conflict / confidentiality boundary

The chronology supports **DOCUMENTED MULTI-ROLE OVERLAP — CONFLICT / CONFIDENTIALITY REVIEW REQUIRED**. It does **not** establish a professional conflict. The missing evidence remains matter-specific: exact client identity, mandate dates, scope, information received, matter-opening and conflict-check records, screens/barriers, waivers/consents, and whether any prior Sun Park/RICPE work remained active when the CaixaBank instruction was accepted.