APPLICATION · OPPOSITION · TWO ORDERS · APPEALS · ACCOUNT · COMPLAINT
Removal, remuneration and integrated control of the Insolvency Administrator
This page provides a traceable account of the located corpus on the 23 April 2025 removal application, the EUR 110,956.97 estate claim, the two first-instance removal orders, the appeals and the criminal complaint presented on 18 June 2026. It is not certification of a complete court file. The pleadings contain allegations; the located decisions rejected the actions on standing and did not decide the seven removal grounds or the legality of the challenged remuneration.
Control rule
No Administrator act will now be analysed in isolation.
Mandatory gateway: every statement about the Insolvency Administrator must identify the source, act and date, duty/power, proven knowledge, practical capacity, act or omission, consequence, alleged benefit, contrary evidence, procedural state and missing production. It must be checked against the remuneration claim, removal application, orders and appeals, the complaint associated with Decanato daily intake reference 22 and—where a genuine evidential bridge exists—DP 1901/2026 and its additions.
No merger: handwritten daily intake reference 22 concerns receipt of the AC complaint; it is not an official case number. DP 1901/2026 is a separate route concerned principally with private actors. The 9 July addition belongs to that private-actor lane. Shared documents do not turn them into one proceeding.
What is published
Digitised specialist corpus: 50 items, with court decisions displayed.
This corpus covers the identified removal and remuneration lanes; it is not the whole Insolvency 36/2012 court file.
25 court and LAJ acts
The dedicated page displays the complete substantive text of every located order, judgment, decree, procedural direction, summons and scheduling decision. Ten key decisions also have raster-only public PDFs with no searchable text or inherited metadata.
25 located filings · complete redacted transcripts
The located source-copy pages of the removal application, remuneration claim, defences, reconsideration motions, appeals, oppositions and later submissions are transcribed in full in the repository. Textual completeness does not itself prove an official copy, filing, service, admission, examination or finality. Five identified editable copies lack an independent filing receipt in the corpus.
Every item records source hash, pagination, provenance, copy status and any internal inconsistency. Cited documents that were not located are logged as gaps.
23 April 2025
What the removal application alleged
Aweswell sought removal of Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte under article 100 TRLC. Its opening case alleged a continuing pattern of omission, patrimonial harm and opacity and said alternatives to liquidation were not adequately explored. Its seven blocks were:
Annual accounts
Alleged continuing failure to formulate and deposit LPB accounts after suspension of the debtor's powers, relying particularly on a 20 March 2025 procedural order that located neither an exemption order nor annual-account documents.
Financial-risk contract
Alleged inaction and later obstruction concerning a 2008 financial-risk contract said to have caused more than EUR 500,000 harm and potentially to support an estate claim.
Credit-assignment price
Alleged obstruction of access to the true consideration and complete assignment terms despite their relevance to litigation, negotiation and estate strategy.
Transfer in payment
Alleged insufficiently critical acceptance or support of a harmful transaction, including valuation, perimeter and authority issues. The allegation concerns estate advice and protection; it does not recast a later judicial order as Administrator conduct.
Operating unity
Alleged inaction in the face of fragmentation of the hotel as an economic unit and access, operation and third-party-property issues.
Remuneration
Alleged accrual and receipt beyond liquidation time limits and interest on fees. This block overlaps with, but does not replace, the separate civil action.
Opacity and conflicts
Alleged information asymmetry and failures to disclose or manage relationships and conflicts capable of affecting independence, transparency and confidence in the office.
Relief sought: removal; a new appointment; accounts; Public Insolvency Register notice; referral to AEAT concerning annual accounts; and referral to the Public Prosecutor to assess any possible criminal significance. None of this means the court accepted the allegations.
Two adverse decisions · merits unresolved
What the orders actually decided
Lack of active standing
The Court accepted the Administrator's objection: it treated the former Monterecco/Aweswell credit listed at EUR 0 as exclusion and relied on the absence of a challenge to the provisional creditor list. It dismissed the application expressly without needing to enter the merits grounds.
Decides: Aweswell's standing on that application.
Does not decide: accounts, the financial contract, assignment price, transfer in payment, operating unity, remuneration or conflicts.
LPB and Aweswell reconsideration
It confirmed the earlier order, rejected article 427 because it was not invoked in the original 58 pages and considered merits analysis unnecessary once the procedural objection was upheld. It added that it saw no indication requiring ex-officio removal or an article 82 report. It rejected both appeals without costs and opened a non-suspensive appeal.
Contrary evidence preserved: that ex-officio assessment is materially contrary evidence, but it is not an act-by-act documentary adjudication of the seven blocks.
Text control: the first order appears to refer internally to “article 100(3)” after reproducing article 3; the second names Aweswell in the final sentence of the LPB section although the operative part dismisses both appeals. They are recorded as internal citation/name inconsistencies without inferring intent or altering the operative ruling.
Second instance
RPL 3304/2025 and 3319/2025
RPL 3304/2025
LPB appeal.
An earlier order set study/vote/judgment for 9 July 2026.
RPL 3319/2025
Aweswell appeal.
Formed and processed; January/February 2026 records located.
Order 223/2026
15 July 2026.
Accumulated 3319 into 3304 and ordered service/document steps.
No later signed merits disposition was located at the 23 August 2026 cut-off. Accumulation does not predict the result.
1 September 2024
The remuneration recovery claim for the estate
The professional-liability action was brought against the Administrator and liability insurer. It alleged that, after liquidation opened on 19 December 2017, remuneration continued beyond the ordinary statutory period and interest was charged on common/convenio-phase remuneration. It sought return to the estate—not direct payment to Aweswell—of EUR 110,956.97, or the sum produced by the pleaded bases, plus interest and costs.
| Alleged component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Liquidation remuneration alleged to be improper, including IGIC | EUR 65,217.76 |
| Legal interest on that component | EUR 9,504.77 |
| Interest alleged to be improper on common/convenio remuneration | EUR 31,107.46 |
| Interest on that component | EUR 5,126.98 |
| Total claimed | EUR 110,956.97 |
Legal-source correction: the correct source is the Third Transitional Provision of Law 25/2015, not its Third Additional Provision. In summary: 10% for the first six months, 5% from month seven and, from month thirteen, only a reasoned judicial extension after hearing and within the statutory limit. Correcting the label does not decide whether the pleaded calculation succeeds.
Judgment 4/2026 · 21 January 2026
The Court dismissed the claim for lack of Aweswell standing in the collective estate action and awarded costs against the claimant. It did not reach the remaining defences or decide whether the fees or interest were lawfully due.
RPL 421/2026
The appeal is documented in March 2026: deposit paid on 10 March and filing receipt dated 11 March. No later signed merits decision was located. Accordingly, the legality and amount of the charges remain disputed.
18 June 2026
Administrator complaint · daily intake reference 22
The 48-page filing was framed as a criminal complaint/notitia criminis concerning the Administrator. The controlled intake material associates physical presentation with handwritten daily intake reference 22. The official allocation document fixing the NIG, court and present state has not yet been located.
Its main provisional hypothesis is possible disloyal administration under Criminal Code article 252. The filing expressly distinguishes crime from error, bad management, negligence or insolvency disagreement and applies this test:
Entrusted power → verifiable knowledge → act/decision/failure to use an available measure → patrimonial harm → possible corresponding third-party advantage.
The episodes include Community/debt; the funded 2018 exit; access, keys, security and control; the ob rem transaction and approximately EUR 400,000; credit, liquidation, adjudication and possible surplus; fruits, rents, income, treasury, recovery and accounts. The complaint does not ask the criminal court to re-decide removal; it seeks investigation of the estate manager's own specific acts.
Evidence interface
DP 1901 supplies questions and documents; it does not replace the AC complaint.
Private-actor/CAM route
The located 12 July 2026 order gave the Prosecutor five days to report on admission in relation to DIP 2/2026. No later signed order was located. Its relevance to the Administrator is finite: security instructions/payment; represented authority; keys/access; AC knowledge; protective/accounting response; and later benefit.
Common evidence, separate procedure
The 9 July addition relates to CAM/JDAM/LPAM and the private-actor route. DP 1956 is a distinct AC/insolvency criminal route with a controlled provisional-dismissal state. DIP 80/2026 is deontological. No intake, complaint or dismissal proves criminal responsibility by itself.
Mandatory matrix
How every future act or omission will be analysed
| Field | Required control |
|---|---|
| Source and route | Removal, remuneration, reference 22, DP 1901, DP 1956, DIP 80, appeal or another source? |
| Act / date / capacity | What exact act, when, and in what capacity? |
| Duty and knowledge | Which statute/order/function and what evidence of receipt or warning? |
| Practical capacity | What could the Administrator actually prevent, reverse, request, report, preserve or reconcile? |
| Conduct and causation | What was done or omitted, and what bridge leads to harm? |
| Benefit and account | Who allegedly benefited and what operational/bank record proves it? |
| Contrary evidence | What defence, order, objection, corrective attempt or independent cause exists? |
| Status | Alleged, documented, procedurally rejected, appealed, provisionally dismissed, proved or open? |
Right of response and correction: the Administrator, insurer, CAM, LPB, creditors, professionals and any affected person may provide primary documents, context, exculpatory evidence or corrections. Silence is not treated as admission.
General Administrator matrix →Provincial Court →Institutional accountability →