PROVENANCE · CONTEMPORANEOUS KNOWLEDGE · NOT A PERSONAL PROFILE
Daniel Irigoyen as a contemporaneous professional source in 2018.
The public relevance is not to profile the lawyer or publish private correspondence. It is that contemporaneous communications attributed to D. Daniel Irigoyen Fujiwara support finite questions about a funded exit, patrimonial preservation, meetings with the Insolvency Administration/Court and quantification before later decisions.
Public provenance ledger
| Date | Source status | Finite question | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13/06/2018 | Contemporaneous communication identified in the later judicial package; the original and any procedural incorporation require authentication. | What funded/operating solution was explained, what quantification was sought, and what trace exists in diaries, filings, transfers and rulings. | It is not a judicial minute or full proof of oral content. |
| 22/06/2018 | Contemporaneous communication preserved. | Whether potential danger to LPB's patrimony was then treated as a matter justifying coordination and conservation measures inside the insolvency. | It does not prove that every suggested measure was formally requested or legally required. |
| 04/07/2018 | Contemporaneous communication preserved. | Whether the proposed route was activated: require the Administrator to report and adopt conservation measures, with judicial assistance where appropriate. | The existence of legal advice does not establish formal filing. |
| 26/09/2018 | Contemporaneous email also located in the reviewed Gmail account, containing notes of same-day meetings. | Whether the approximate €13.1m figure was treated as problematic and relevant to third-party bidding, and how the explanation that the pending appeal prevented or counselled against deciding then was documented. | Professional notes require comparison with the official record and, if needed, limited witness confirmation. |
Why this page is deliberately limited
Full legal communications may be subject to professional secrecy, confidentiality, privacy or litigation strategy. The site therefore publishes only date, provenance, verification proposition and evidential limit. It does not publish private numbers, unnecessary personal data or the full body of legal advice.