CaixaBank · Valencia · Two-minute briefing
Aweswell Limited v CAIXABANK, S.A. Aweswell alleges that linked loans, the swap, the pledge and account treatment harmed LPB and contributed to its insolvency. Understand the claim, examine the documents and consider where you could help.
Aweswell Limited invokes its creditor status to pursue a patrimonial action at its own expense in the interest of the insolvency estate of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB). CaixaBank disputes that standing and scope.
Source and limits →The located copy seeks nullity of the swap and linked transactions, restitution and subsidiary damages. It states €1,124,445.84 as a provisional procedural amount, plus interest and costs. This is not an obtained recovery or a valuation of all hotel losses.
Source and limits →Its defence raises standing, the prior request and scope, insolvency credit recognition, time bars, information and consent, causation and quantum. These are the defendant’s positions, not findings adopted by this site.
Source and limits →The located claim and expert-report copies differ from the fingerprints in their receipts. The defence, index and ten exhibits match. The complete court file and exact versions of all relevant pleadings and annexes remain open.
Source and limits →Thank you for taking the time to review the matter. We welcome a conversation about where your experience or a suitable introduction could make a constructive contribution.
Sharing this material does not appoint counsel or commit either side to an engagement. No settlement amount is proposed on this public page.
Connects allegations, acts, sources and contrary explanations across the matter. Every alleged criminal link retains its own proof requirements.
Examine this connection →Helps examine the beneficiary, payments and insolvency accounting. The 24 February 2021 order already mentioned contemplated Bankia litigation.
Examine this connection →Follows assignments, enforcement and title. A banking recovery does not automatically reverse later transfers.
Examine this connection →One connected economic history; distinct people, proceedings and legal remedies.
Return to the CaixaBank briefingSubstantive source update: 8 September 2026. 35 recovered PDFs / 543 pages; 5 public copies / 83 pages. This navigation update adds the opening briefing, recommended reading, accessible catalogue and contribution paths. Restoration continues; specific gaps remain visible.
See availability and remaining gaps →The full analysis follows, retaining attributed positions, contrary sources and unresolved questions.
LIVE CLAIM · 2008–2012 BANKING PACKAGE · RECOVERY
The record requires one economic reconstruction of a package originated by Caja Insular de Ahorros de Canarias / La Caja de Canarias and later administered and enforced by Bankia, without confusing it with the later mortgage-asset chain. CaixaBank is Bankia's universal successor and the present defendant; underlying liability and quantum remain contested.
Aweswell Limited v CAIXABANK, S.A. · Ordinary Proceeding [ORD] 1859/2023-9 · Juzgado de Primera Instancia nº 27 de Valencia · N.I.G. 46250-42-1-2023-0049579. The hearing listed for 6 November 2025 at 10:00 did not proceed after the opposing expert reported a cancelled flight the evening before. Aweswell did not oppose suspension because it wished to question him personally. A signed court diligence dated 6 November 2025 relisted the hearing for 28 January 2027 at 10:00. The claim is pending and contested; no merits judgment or adjudicated recovery has been located.
Explore a short case overview, the document catalogue or the connections to wider recovery. The complete existing dossier continues below.
Source update · 8 September 2026: the acquired court notice confirms 28 January 2027 at 10:00, NIG 4625042120230049579. Twelve defence payloads match their receipt; exact claimant and expert filed copies remain gaps. The expert’s 18 October stamp records procurador reception. Complete originals are preserved; public document copies are under specific review.
ATTRIBUTED ALLEGATION · NOT A JUDICIAL FINDING
Reconstructing the instruments together strengthens the economic analysis; legal responsibility is then allocated actor by actor.
17-Jun-2008: €8,600,000 loan, six months at 6.25%, then E12m +1.50, 3.50% floor, maturity 1-Jul-2024. Swap: €5,000,000, 7-Jul-2008–7-Jan-2012. 27-May-2010: novation and €850,000 second mortgage, €405,000 pledge and principal grace.
The reserved declarant says the swap was a condition of finance, was explained as protection from rising rates without adequate explanation of its severe low-rate cost, and that the second facility, pledge and accounts responded to pressure created by settlements. Her account is registered as S1/V2: attributed, not ratified, signed or sworn.
The voice source recalled €55,000 × 2 and mistakenly said €210,000; the arithmetic would be €110,000. An internal LPB ledger records a different layer: €60,000 on 31-Jan + €59,000 on 4-Feb = €119,000 gross, with €100,584.80 posted to the first facility and €10,559 to the second. Native deeds and bank statements remain required.
The declarant's asserted €19,500 December balance has not been located. The internal ledger ends 30-Sep-2011 at about –€99,758.80 and shows movements in pledged funds. The dates differ: the 9-Dec statement and trace of every sweep, set-off or allocation are required.
| Actor/capacity | Liability question |
|---|---|
| Caja Insular de Ahorros de Canarias La Caja de Canarias | Its own 2008–2010 origination: design, alleged tying, information, floor+swap, novation, pledge and accounts. Do not confuse it with CajaCanarias or Cajasiete. |
| BFA | Intermediate corporate successor in 2011. Deeds/schedules must identify included and excluded obligations; no unproved operational conduct is attributed. |
| Bankia | Its own administration, receipt allocation, default notice/calculation, acceleration, certification, claim and enforcement. |
| CaixaBank | Bankia's universal successor and current defendant. Succession is documented; underlying obligation, limitation, causation and quantum remain litigated. |
| SAREB → PH122 → CAM | Separate mortgage-credit holder/assignee chain; the specific asset and each actor's own later conduct require proof. |
| Haya Real Estate | Documented servicer/interlocutor, not a proved credit holder; mandate, instruction and authority remain open. |
ALG-NPL-019 · DIRECT ALLEGATION BY GIL MARER AND AWESWELL · NOT A JUDICIAL FINDING
Gil Marer and Aweswell allege that components of the economic package originated by Caja Insular de Ahorros de Canarias / La Caja de Canarias acquired separate transactional, accounting and procedural lives: in Bankia's administration and enforcement; in Insolvency 36/2012; outside insolvency in Arrecife Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012; and through Bankia → SAREB → Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. (PH122) → Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. (CAM). They allege that this separation was instrumentalised to sustain balances, enforcement rights and a later credit-to-control-to-title conversion, and that materially false or inflated documents or data may have contributed to an unjustified benefit. This remains an allegation requiring actor-specific and document-specific proof.
The corporate/product lane is tested as Caja Insular / La Caja de Canarias → BFA → Bankia → CaixaBank. The mortgage-asset lane is tested as Bankia → SAREB → PH122 → CAM. Haya is documented as servicer/interlocutor, not holder. Cerberus remains context until ownership, mandate, instruction, control, ratification or benefit is proved.
The recognised insolvency credit and Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012 must be reconciled by legal function, property, payment and effect. The located Arrecife initiating claim concerns the second facility and €857,373.81; the incomplete file does not support saying that both loans were independently enforced or that Protocol 457 satisfied or cancelled that enforcement.
€839,441 (capital demand), €857,373.81 (EH90 claim), €9,052,251.69 (recognised insolvency credit), €12,251,446.21 (PH122 certificates), €13,165,832.36 (Protocols 869 + 870) and €13,168,082.02 (stated threshold/consideration) are figures with different dates and functions. They must not be added or treated as one debt without a source–date–concept–payment–cancellation ledger.
The hypothesis requires the exact document, original and comparator; author and capacity; alteration, simulation or false attribution; knowledge and intent; use; induced reliance or disposition; and resulting benefit or harm. An authentic deed may record disputed party recitals without the instrument or the notarial act thereby being false. For a private actor, CP 392 incorporates only CP 390.1.1º–3º, not mere untruthful narration under 390.1.4º; CP 393 first requires a proved false document and then, knowing its falsity, presentation in court or, for other use, also a purpose to harm.
Chain and liability →Protocol 457 / Arrecife →PH122 · Haya · Cerberus →
MECHANICS · DOUBLE FLOOR · NO HARD CAP
Net cashflows must be compared; gross percentages cannot simply be added.
Approximate covered cost = mortgage rate + (LPB swap leg − 3m Euribor)
| E3m | Net swap outflow under 4.85% leg | Combined cost if 3.50% floor operates |
|---|---|---|
| 1.00% | 3.85% | 7.35% |
| 0.50% | 4.35% | 7.85% |
| 0.00% | 4.85% | 8.35% |
The mortgage floor prevented the full E12m fall from reaching the loan while the swap required 5.15% or 4.85% and returned declining E3m. On the €5m covered slice, the drain increased when the loan rate had already stopped falling. E12m/E3m, partial notional and 2012 expiry added basis, amount and duration risk.
Above the 5.55% barrier, the described structure delivered about 0.15 points of relief; it did not impose a hard ceiling on mortgage cost. Partial amount and shorter tenor matter to effectiveness and explanation, but do not alone prove an improper purpose.
Its expert says the written contract warned of negative settlements and uses a 17-Jun-2008 forward curve to derive a 0.516% sum of annualised favourable differentials. Aweswell disputes that this is a full cash/options valuation and what scenarios were meaningfully explained before signature.
TAE is not “TIN plus every product.” The second deed states TAE 3.717%; no first-loan TAE is invented. A useful expert model should separately reconstruct ex-post loan, floor, swap, fees, pledge and refinancing cost without mislabelling an unregulated sum as TAE.
29-NOV-2011 → 10/23-JAN-2012 → 1-FEB-2012
The second mortgage granted 18 months' principal grace from 1-Jun-2010 and expressly set the first principal instalment for 1-Jan-2012. Interest continued during grace.
An outgoing Bankia burofax admitted on 29-Nov-2011 demanded €839,441 capital, €16,078.10 interest and €590.12 default interest, plus €439.64 per day from 24-Nov. Delivery/receipt, calculation and the acceleration clause used remain to be proved.
The filing was signed 10-Jan-2012, court-received 23-Jan and followed by the 1-Feb order. It alleged non-payment of “interest and principal amortisation” from 7-Jul-2011 and claimed €839,441 accelerated capital + €17,236.08 ordinary interest + €696.73 default interest = €857,373.81, plus €257,000 provisional.
Alleged missed principal amortisation from July is in tension with the January first-instalment date. That does not automatically void enforcement: the monthly certificate is missing, and the court must examine whether proven interest default, notices and the applicable clause permitted acceleration.
HYPOTHESIS REJECTED AS A PRESENT FACT
Credit impairment coverage was an accounting adjustment; own funds applied at institution/group level to risk-weighted exposures; and minimum reserves were based mainly on bank liabilities. None was a cash escrow separated for this mortgage.
Swap settlements could worsen LPB's liquidity and default risk without releasing any bank prudential duty. Testing internal purpose or pricing requires credit classification, collateral/LTV, RWA/capital, impairment, risk approval, valuation and product/hedge-desk records.
Alleged €400,000/€800,000 receipts cannot be compared to a supposed bank “reserve” using the €8.6m nominal. Even the 8% capital rule depended on risk weights and internal data; it was not automatically 8% of the loan.
No evidence establishes a secret Banco de España warning. The ECB held 4.00% on 5-Jun-2008, raised to 4.25% on 9-Jul and first cut on 15-Oct. Any bank-foreknowledge allegation needs internal documents; the later collapse cannot be treated as known in June.
Official sources: Circular 4/2004 · RD 216/2008 · Circular 3/2008 · ECB 5-Jun-2008 · ECB 9-Jul-2008 · ECB 15-Oct-2008.
What is being claimed
CaixaBank's expert report, signed on 17 and court-received on 18 October 2024, records pleaded prejudice of €1,124,445.84. The figure is disputed and must not be presented as money already won.
€1,124,445.84
The claim advances nullity/restitution and subsidiary damages. CaixaBank disputes liability, limitation, causation, payment and quantum.
| Cuadro A · alleged net swap settlements | €573,591.53 |
| Cuadro C · alleged second-loan interest | €63,882.93 |
| Cuadro D · alleged effect of additional +0.50 | €81,971.38 |
| Pledge | €405,000.00 |
Why this belongs in the lender chain
This lane tests the loans and refinancing, linked swap/financial-product issues, the €405,000 pledged deposit, account administration, cure/default treatment, acceleration, enforcement calculation and resulting loss. The present defendant is CaixaBank as the current institution sued on that historic banking relationship.
The later credit moved through the historical Bankia perimeter, SAREB, Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. and Construcciones Acosta Matos, followed by adjudication/dación/title events and the later Hotel New Trend perimeter. That lane asks who held or enforced the mortgage credit, what was assigned, what was paid, what possession or control was exercised and when title changed.
A later assignment or title event does not retrospectively validate every earlier bank calculation, financial-product charge, acceleration or enforcement step. Equally, a banking claim against CaixaBank does not automatically invalidate every later credit assignment or possession event. The two ledgers must meet through a reproducible principal–interest–payment–pledge–assignment–dación–recovery accounting bridge.
Open Lender of Record →Open lender / possession convergence →PH122 → CAM assignment / Article 1535 →
The 2012 origin question
The primary 15-May-2012 Arrecife diligence scheduled 158 LPB properties for auction on 22-Jun-2012 at 10:00, at €94,900.67 per property. LPB's voluntary insolvency filing came first and had an immediate defensive function.
The 29-Nov-2011 outgoing burofax, signed-10-Jan/court-received-23-Jan claim, 1-Feb order and 5-Mar cure email are now located. Still open are proof of burofax delivery, the monthly certificate, complete statements, demands, opposition, termination and the allocation calculation.
Administrador Concursal · witness origin
The later court shorthand must not erase the sequence documented contemporaneously by counsel.
A 30 October 2024 email from counsel Javier Sixto records that the testimony of Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte, the Administrador Concursal in Concurso 36/2012, was admitted at CaixaBank's request and that Aweswell adhered to that request. Later court citations therefore describe him procedurally as testigo propuesto por la parte actora y demandada.
The controlled reading is not “both parties independently chose the AC.” It is: CaixaBank requested/proposed Borja; Aweswell adhered; the later both-sides wording records the resulting procedural posture.
Gil Marer's account that the adhesion was defensive and driven by concern about procedural prejudice is preserved as client-reported context; an express contemporaneous counsel source stating that rationale has not yet been located.
Calificación and recovery
The materially adverse first-instance Calificación record must be reconciled with a live third-party recovery route connected to the same economic history. If the banking claim succeeds in whole or in part, the result may affect net-loss and recovery analysis. It does not presently establish liability and it does not prove that patrimonial loss was caused exclusively by the bank.
Chronology matters. Sentencia 163/2023 is dated 28 September 2023. CaixaBank's expert report describes the present claim as filed on 13 October 2023. This later proceeding therefore cannot, by itself, prove that the Fiscal in 2019 or the first-instance judge before 28 September 2023 knew of this particular lawsuit. Earlier knowledge of the underlying banking dispute or recovery potential must be proved from earlier sources actor by actor.
Source completion
The claim, defence, CaixaBank expert, novation, second deed, burofax and enforcement claim have been read in working copies. Native/certified custody and missing annexes are now the priority.
Complete native 2008 deed; swap confirmation/annexes; appropriateness/suitability test; scenarios; initial/cancellation valuation; credit approval; pledge/movements; and proof whether the product was a condition of finance.
Complete bank statements, two sale deeds, proof of burofax delivery, monthly certificate, title, demands, opposition, liquidation, termination and euro-by-euro allocation in Execution 90/2012.
Caja Insular→BFA→Bankia deeds/schedules; LPB asset schedule for Bankia→SAREB; retained personal obligations; Haya mandates; later transfers and CAM→HNT segregation.
Certified/public-safe ORD 1859/2023-9 file; native AC authorisation; credit recognition; payments/set-offs; swap balance; pledge and no-double-recovery reconciliation.
The controlled N.I.G. is 46250-42-1-2023-0049579 and the current hearing is 28-Jan-2027 at 10:00. The declarant's attributed source is preserved as unratified, and its corrections travel with it.
This page is the banking-liability/recovery node. Continue through the connected chain without merging legal roles:
1 · Lender-liability matrix →2 · Banking origin / lender of record →3 · Lender, sale and possession →4 · PH122 → CAM assignment →5 · Recovery objectives →