Archive
The Disciplinary Promotor archived the matter. The institutional position treated the issues as outside disciplinary misconduct and within the jurisdictional sphere.
READER ROOM · PERMANENT COMMISSION · APPEAL 286/2026 / DI 169/2026
The question is not whether one ruling was wrong. It is what supervision protected the estate before each irreversible step.
This reader room reconstructs one institutional question: knowledge → supervisory duty/power → request or risk → identifiable response → consequence → later opportunity to correct. It begins with the adverse CGPJ decisions and does not ask the Council to revisit the jurisdictional merits of court rulings.
Preparing this page for a possible institutional review or visit does not mean that any visit is scheduled or that the CGPJ cooperates with or endorses this publication. The institutional mark identifies the body only.
THE ORIGINAL THESIS · RESTORED
Protection of the insolvency estate and supervision of the Insolvency Administrator are the spine, not a side issue.
The communication that originated DI 169/2026 asked whether judicial supervision over the principal asset in Insolvency 36/2012 and over the Insolvency Administration had been exercised sufficiently. Appeal 286/2026 developed the same question: not to recalculate debts or replace appeals, but to identify what control acts linked known risks to preservation, information, liquidation and the final patrimonial result.
KNOWN RISK → ADMINISTRATOR MUST REPORT/PRESERVE → JUDGE CAN SUPERVISE/REQUIRE → RESPONSE → PATRIMONIAL STEP → WAS IT RECONCILED?
Current insolvency legislation confirms that the Insolvency Administration is subject to judicial supervision and that the judge may require specific information. For 2018 events the law then in force must be applied; the current rule is used only as a systemic confirmation of the supervisory relationship, not retroactively.
ADVERSE FIRST
The archive remains a central part of the record.
Archive maintained
The Promotor maintained the archive. The primary text identified does not by itself establish a referral to the Inspection Service.
Review question
The Commission can distinguish jurisdictional merits, discipline, inspection/court functioning and court-office matters. Registry filing of later material is not itself substantive examination.
THREE LEVELS OF KNOWLEDGE
The judge is not attributed everything known by the Administrator or everything that happened outside the insolvency file.
Direct judicial knowledge
Filed submissions, hearings, rulings reproducing allegations, formally transmitted reports and documented acts of the court.
Administrator knowledge / reporting duty
Facts known or requiring verification by the Insolvency Administration. They are attributed to the judge only where the timing and method of reporting can be identified, or where the risk later reached the court directly.
External or later context
RICPE, CNMV, tax, funds, later hotel operation and other tracks may establish continuity or consequence, but not historical judicial knowledge unless incorporation into the case is shown.
SEVEN SUPERVISORY NUCLEI
One reconstruction, not seven accusations.
Funded exit + progressive knowledge
The question is not whether the Court had to approve the Aweswell/funder/ONA solution. It is what timely treatment followed knowledge of a structured alternative that depended on preserving the asset and fixing a usable liability figure.
Recognised debt → threshold → debt absorbed
Separate recognised debt, functional improvement threshold and amount ultimately extinguished/absorbed. The approximate €9.052m → €13.1m sequence is a reconciliation hypothesis, not a judicial fact established by this page.
€400,000 operation / non-validation / implementation
After non-validation, which act restored, reconciled or supplied new title for ownership, possession, ob-rem links, money, inventory and accounting before the assets were used again?
Physical protection, access and operating unity
Warnings concerning condition, access, works/alteration and the need for expert or judicial inspection lead to a simple question: if those checks were refused, what neutral equivalent enabled the court to know and preserve the actual state of the principal asset?
Supervision of Borja Rodríguez-Batllori
What did the Administrator know, what should he have verified/reported, what did he report, what did the Court require, and what alternative control was used when removal, inspection or protective measures were refused or deferred?
Material competition: ONA / third-party bidder
Price alone is not enough. Check perimeter, time, access, data room, solvency, deposits, physical/registry information and comparability between new cash and credit set-off/extinguishment.
Adjudication → testimony → deed → Registry → accounts
Reconstruct the complete chain, including corporate identity, charge cancellation, post-deed communication, final accounts and the explanation of any surplus or absence of surplus.
DANIEL IRIGOYEN · KNOWLEDGE SOURCE, NOT ADVERSE ACTOR
A contemporaneous professional sequence connects rescue, estate protection and quantification.
| Date | Proposition that warrants checking | Public-source discipline |
|---|---|---|
| 13/06/2018 | The party corpus identifies a contemporaneous communication following attributed meetings with the Judge and Administrator concerning a funded exit, payment/consignation, updating and preservation of an alternative. | Must be authenticated against the original, diaries, filings and court record; it is not presented as a judicial minute. |
| 22/06/2018 | Irigoyen analysed the alleged events as potentially damaging or endangering LPB's patrimony and proposed criminal/mercantile coordination and conservation measures. | Shows that patrimonial protection was a contemporaneous concern, not a theory created in 2026. |
| 04/07/2018 | He proposed requiring the Administrator to report what had happened and adopt conservation measures, including judicial assistance. | Identifies a concrete report → conservation → judicial-control route. |
| 26/09/2018 | His contemporaneous meeting notes attribute recognition by the Administrator and Court that the approximate €13.1m figure was problematic and affected third-party bidding; they also record the explanation that the pending appeal prevented or counselled against deciding then. | The explanation favourable to the Court is published alongside the critical hypothesis; oral content requires verification and, if appropriate, limited witness confirmation. |
See the full source-status page and professional-secrecy safeguards →
PERIMETER
The insolvency had to protect LPB without turning LPB into all of Sun Park.
Inside the estate
Insolvency authority required inventory, preservation, information and liquidation of LPB property/rights. The supervisory question becomes stronger where deterioration, exclusion of access, material control change or economic use of the asset is alleged.
Outside the estate
Matkator, third parties, operating rights and other titles did not automatically enter LPB's insolvency. The paradox to test is whether property under judicial protection was insufficiently protected while limited insolvency-derived authority produced material effects beyond the estate.
IRREVERSIBILITY TEST
Do not count adverse rulings: locate opportunities for finite verification before the next patrimonial jump.
RISK
What was alleged?
What was alleged?
KNOWLEDGE
Who received it?
Who received it?
POWER
What could be required?
What could be required?
RESPONSE
Which act exists?
Which act exists?
EFFECT
What changed next?
What changed next?
REVERSIBILITY
When did correction become difficult?
When did correction become difficult?
| Window | Risk / opportunity | Later step to reconcile |
|---|---|---|
| June–September 2018 | Material control, funded alternative, conservation, quantification. | November 2018 operation. |
| 2019 | Judicial non-validation. | Restitution/accounting/perimeter before 2021? |
| 2020–February 2021 | Physical condition, access, expert/judicial inspection, debt. | May 2021 tender. |
| May 2021 | Offers, access and material equality. | Adjudication and 2021–22 implementation acts. |
| January–February 2022 | Beneficiary, amount, assets, finality, testimony. | Deed, charge cancellation and Registry. |
| 2025 | Administrator-removal requests after the accumulated history. | What alternative supervisory control was used when he remained? |
| 2026 | DI 169/2026. | What material inquiry preceded the archive? |
TWO BRIDGES REMAIN DECISIVE
They now sit inside the supervisory architecture.
≈ €9.052m → ≈ €13.1m
Locate the act distinguishing and connecting principal, interest, classification, improvement threshold and debt extinguished/absorbed. Numerical difference ≠ irregularity; absence of an identified reconciliation = documentary question.
24/10/2019 → 2021 → 2022
Locate restitution, cure, new title or reconciling act between the non-validated operation and later tender/adjudication, including traceability of €400,000.
SEPARATE MODULE
Appearance of impartiality / LPAM does not substitute for proof of supervision.
Allegations about communications or a personal relationship remain separate. No intimate friendship, influence, partiality, corruption or responsibility is established. The institutional question is only whether the individualised material and proposed official sources warrant a finite check or a specific explanation of why such a check would be unnecessary.
TEN FINITE CHECKS
A strong review may still confirm the archive, but should be able to show the path.
Certified index: what entered, when, what was examined and what was only filed/routed.
Diary, filings and procedural trace of the funded alternative and preservation requests.
What was reported on access, security, conservation, physical state, debts and the 2018 operation.
Inventory/inspection/expert report or neutral equivalent used before liquidation continued.
Ruling and calculation fixing each component with the legal effect later attributed to it.
Act implementing non-validation: Registry, possession, €400,000, accounts and perimeter.
Data room, notice, notifications, access, third-party bidder/ONA, deposits and comparable criteria.
Adjudication, clarification/complement, testimony, deed, charges, Registry and post-deed communication.
Final Administrator accounts and arithmetic bridge through payments, fees, debt extinguishment and surplus.
What court-functioning dimension, if any, was examined by the Inspection Service and which primary act records it.
POSSIBLE INSTITUTIONAL OUTPUTS
The page does not demand a predetermined conclusion.
A reasoned answer may: maintain the jurisdictional boundary if it explains why every nucleus lacks a governmental or disciplinary dimension; distinguish and refer court-functioning issues to the Inspection Service; return a defined disciplinary module to the Promotor where Article 608 LOPJ permits; separate LAJ/court-office matters; or leave criminal characterisation exclusively to the Public Prosecution/TSJ route. None of those steps itself proves responsibility.
Deep file: estate supervision and seven nuclei → · Judge/Court matrix → · Administrator matrix →