DO NOW · evidence → knowledge → power → act → consequence
This page does not allege corruption, collusion or unlawful intent. It isolates document-answerable acts and omissions so the Insolvency Administrator's role can be professionally reviewed at the moments of greatest patrimonial consequence in Insolvency 36/2012.
Mercantile Court No. 1 suspended the realization process for a defined set of properties because, if the appeal succeeded, the conditions of the proposed transfer in payment to Construcciones Acosta Matos S.A. would be substantially different. The remaining rulings stayed unchanged and liquidation could continue for other estate assets.
The primary order already identified in the record documents an ob rem unlinking and sale carried out without prior judicial authorization and refuses later authorization or validation. The open question is what practical consequence that judicial control had for later acts.
The record should be reconstructed asset by asset: what information existed on title, LPB perimeter, Matkator/third-party assets, RIC, financing and exploitation before adjudication and transfer in payment, and what position the Administrator took in response.
The existence of two references does not permit them to be merged or one to be presented as confirmation of the other. Each has its own object, file and procedural status.
The located order of 12 July 2026 gave the Public Prosecutor five days to report on admission in relation to DIP 2/2026. At the latest published cut-off, no later signed decision had been located.
The latest controlled status is provisional dismissal communicated on 21 July 2026. It is not presented as a final merits determination. The dedicated page explains the legal distinction and the possible future relevance of genuinely new evidence, always subject to judicial decision.
Separate responsibility question. Documented use of an @es.gt.com account and the “Senior Advisor” description in Insolvency 36/2012 communications, together with the later commercial relationship acknowledged by Grant Thornton Spain and public Cuyás/GT professional presentation, makes it necessary to determine act by act whether any relevant conduct sat exclusively within the Administrator's personal sphere or within a collective professional perimeter.
No shared liability is attributed to Cuyás Abogados, Grant Thornton Canarias, Grant Thornton Spain or GTIL on those facts alone. The required test is: document → professional act → capacity → entity → authority/supervision → duty → damage → causation → applicable liability rule.
Open Cuyás Abogados / Grant Thornton Canarias · perimeter and potential responsibility →
The Insolvency Administrator exercised statutory functions within a court-supervised process and could rely on the liquidation plan, judicial orders and information then available. Error, a disputed interpretation or even an act later found to lack prior authorization does not by itself prove corruption or concerted wrongdoing. Likewise, use of a brand, office or email domain does not itself establish professional-firm liability.
It does not establish crime, judicial wrongdoing, corruption, collusion, misappropriation or civil or criminal liability. Its narrower function is to fix a verifiable matrix of knowledge, power, act, professional capacity, judicial response and patrimonial consequence.
Correction invitation: any primary document that contradicts, completes or contextualizes this matrix should be added visibly.