262-property perimeter
Who owned each finca, when, under what instrument, and what later transfer or use affected it?
UNITARY CASE INTERFACE · EVIDENCE BEFORE CONCLUSION
Case Control Room
One public interface for the connected Sun Park record. It does not collapse different legal entities, proceedings, assets or evidential statuses. It shows how the systems interact, what is documented, what remains alleged or open, who can answer the finite questions, and what evidence could change the interpretation.
- Source-controlled
- ES/EN architecture
- Corrections preserved
- Open evidence remains
UnderstandSee the six systems and the causal sequence.AuditMove from proposition to evidence, contradiction and boundary.RespondSee the finite questions and the records capable of resolving them.
Six systems, one physical hotel.
The central discipline is separation without fragmentation. Registered title, CEXP participation, the insolvency estate, material control, investment finance and institutional supervision are different legal/evidential systems; they become intelligible only when their interactions are reconciled.
Operating value beyond isolated title
LPB was the debtor; CEXP was outside the estate. The open valuation question is what legally and economically attributable CEXP/productive-unit value belonged in the insolvency analysis.
AC / Court / calificación
What was known, received, valued, protected, rejected, acted upon or left unresolved at each decision point, including creditor-assignment and estate-benefit questions?
7 June 2018 and aftermath
Separate creditor status, physical access/control, possession, later title and the treatment of Matkator and third-party rights.
RICPE, RIC, HNT and later funding lives
Reconcile title, project representations, eligible expenditure, Series F/G, incentives and later operation without treating coexistence as proof of misuse.
Who holds the answer?
Courts, CGPJ, Fiscalía, tax and transparency bodies, local administrations, supervisors and professional firms hold different parts of the documentary answer.
- 2008One hotel, fragmented registered titles.
- 2011–12Community authority, debt, voting and insolvency begin to interact.
- 2015–18CEXP value, costs, credit-assignment and recovery rights are raised contemporaneously.
- 7 Jun 2018Material-control shift creates a new possession/operation layer.
- 2020–22Investor image, judicial treatment, award, deed and new finance converge.
- 2023–26Calificación, institutional and professional-conduct routes, transparency and reconstruction test the earlier chain.
Audit the proposition, not the personality.
Every important public conclusion should be reducible to a source-status question. The site uses the following grammar; a stronger label requires stronger evidence.
- Documented
- Attributed allegation
- Evidence-based inference
- Open question
- Official outcome
Title reconciliation
Which contemporaneous record reconciled fragmented registered title, private/Matkator units, the 2020 whole-project investor image and the later award/deed?
Productive-unit value
What was LPB’s legally attributable value in or against CEXP, and how was participation, income, receivables, operating infrastructure and going-concern value treated?
AC / Court treatment
For each CEXP/value document: delivery or LexNET receipt → docket entry → response/order → later reliance → economic consequence.
Credit assignment / PP 1041
What did LPB obtain or lose when the PH122→CAM assignment, deed-and-price information route and possible Article 1535 option were treated across the two judicial lanes? A possible claim is not assumed to have been legally viable.
Valuation reconciliation
How were ACTÚA, the separate GESVALT critique, the later ECO appraisal, physical condition, title perimeter and operating economics reconciled for their different purposes?
Finance and idoneidad
What exact expenditure and legal scope did Series F/G and the identified idoneidad / AEAT antecedents cover, and how were overlapping financing/support layers reconciled?
Professional lifecycle / conduct
What does the Cuatrecasas mandate → handover → recovery → ETJ sequence establish, and what remains merely alleged? ICAM archives on limitation or competence are not merits rulings.
Institutional response
Which authority or professional actor had competence, notice and the ability to obtain the missing record, and what reasoned response exists?
Answer dashboard
This is not a silence-equals-liability table. It identifies the finite documentary question and the current public route where the latest controlled status should be checked.
Insolvency Administrator / CourtCEXP value, title/estate treatment, accounting and liquidation reasoningDocumentary reconciliationOpen current record →
PH122 → CAM / PP 1041Assignment economics, deed/price route, Article 1535 classification and measurable estate benefitPrimary acts still requiredOpen PP 1041 record →
CGPJ / judicial governanceSupervisory treatment of alerts and judicial-governance questionsCurrent-status routeOpen CGPJ record →
Cuatrecasas / ICAM / CCACMProfessional lifecycle, complaint/appeal sequence, limitation and territorial-competence decisionsNo merits inferenceOpen procedural map →
Gobierno de Canarias / AEAT / RICPESeries F/G, idoneidad, eligible expenditure and reconciliation with other supportOpen documentary questionsOpen Series F/G →
Title / property chainFinca-by-finca ownership, transfers, Matkator and third-party perimeterReconstructionOpen 262 map →
What would materially change or narrow Por Derecho’s present view?
- A complete primary 2013 AC source and definitive-text record resolving the €737,338.85 CEXP item and its legal treatment.
- Delivery receipts, LexNET/docket entries and reasoned orders showing how the 2015–2018 CEXP/productive-unit submissions were received and dealt with.
- The exact primary withdrawal/archive act, instruction and appeal/finality chain for PP 1041/2017, plus complete PH122→CAM assignment economics and any contemporaneous estate-interest analysis.
- A contemporaneous title/perimeter reconciliation explaining the transition from fragmented ownership to the whole-project representations and later award/operation.
- The complete Series F/G application, idoneidad decision(s), AEAT report scope and source-and-use evidence reconciling eligible expenditure and any other support.
- Final or later procedural records from ICAM/CCACM/Tenerife capable of changing the currently published professional-conduct status.
- Primary records that contradict, contextualise or defeat any published inference. Corrections should receive equivalent prominence.