PDPor DerechoLPB · Insolvency 36/2012

Document reader · 8 September 2026

Documents, submissions and decisions

19 registered acts15 viewable documents

Partial coverage: the complete docket and every annex are not certified. A pleading copy does not by itself prove filing; a party report or prosecutorial opinion is not a judicial decision.

View the register of located submissions and acts (19)
Source dateSubmission / actRecorded statusPublic copy
2019-02-11AC calificación report
Source identification and statusF360-AC-CALIFICACION-2019

SIGNED_COPY_RECEIPT_UNVERIFIED

NO_DOCUMENT_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

Earlier and later acts
Signed copy; filing is not yet established by a linked receipt.

This control has no verified document-linked receipt.

A newly recovered complete source copy is publicly readable; earlier registry limitations remain preserved.

Insolvency Administrator classification report — 11 February 2019
2019-03-12Public Prosecutor’s classification opinion
Source identification and statusF360-FISCAL-20190312

PRIMARY_REPORT_EXAMINED_NO_MATCHED_FILING_RECEIPT

NO_MATCHING_RECEIPT_ESTABLISHED

Earlier and later acts
Report examined; filing-receipt matching remains open.

This control has no verified document-linked receipt.

A newly recovered complete source copy is publicly readable; earlier registry limitations remain preserved.

Public Prosecutor opinion — 12 March 2019
2019-04-02Providencia de 2 de abril de 2019 — audiencia y emplazamiento en la sección de calificación
Source identification and statusC36-JUD-2019-04-02-CALIFICACION-DIRECTION

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_OR_LAJ_COPY

NOT_APPLICABLE_TO_ISSUED_ACT

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

2 April 2019 direction: prosecution opinion and summons
2019-04-23LPB opposition to culpable classification
Source identification and statusF360-LPB-CALIFICACION-OPPOSITION-2019

SIGNED_COPY_RECEIPT_UNVERIFIED

NO_DOCUMENT_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

Earlier and later acts
Signed copy; filing is not yet established by a linked receipt.

This control has no verified document-linked receipt.

Public copy not linked
2019-06-06Gil opposition to culpable classification
Source identification and statusF360-GIL-CALIFICACION-OPPOSITION-2019

SIGNED_COPY_RECEIPT_UNVERIFIED

NO_DOCUMENT_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

Earlier and later acts
Signed copy; filing is not yet established by a linked receipt.

This control has no verified document-linked receipt.

Public copy not linked
2021-03-23Pink and Patricia opposition to culpable classification
Source identification and statusF360-PINK-CALIFICACION-OPPOSITION-2021

SIGNED_COPY_RECEIPT_UNVERIFIED

NO_DOCUMENT_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

Earlier and later acts
Signed copy; filing is not yet established by a linked receipt.

This control has no verified document-linked receipt.

Public copy not linked
2023-03-23LPB application for its named lawyer to appear by Webex
Source identification and statusF360-LPB-WEBEX-20230323

filed_lexnet_receipt_verified

VERIFIED_LINKED_RECEIPT

Earlier and later acts
Filing established by a linked receipt.

Filing established by a linked receipt.

Public copy not linked
2023-03-31LAJ hearing direction for 25 and 26 July 2023
Source identification and statusC36-LAJ-2023-03-31-001

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_COPY

ISSUED_OR_SOURCE_ACT_NOT_A_PARTY_FILING

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

Public copy not linked
2023-03-31Separate LAJ treatment of the LPB Webex application
Source identification and statusC36-LAJ-2023-03-31-002

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_COPY

ISSUED_OR_SOURCE_ACT_NOT_A_PARTY_FILING

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

Public copy not linked
2023-07-11LPB application for its named lawyer to appear by Webex
Source identification and statusF360-LPB-WEBEX-20230711

filed_lexnet_receipt_verified

VERIFIED_LINKED_RECEIPT

Earlier and later acts
Filing established by a linked receipt.

Filing established by a linked receipt.

Public copy not linked
2023-07-14Providencia on remote attendance by the named LPB lawyer
Source identification and statusC36-JUD-2023-07-14-001

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_COPY

ISSUED_OR_SOURCE_ACT_NOT_A_PARTY_FILING

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

Public copy not linked
2023-09-28Sentencia 163/2023 — calificación del Concurso 36/2012
Source identification and statusC36-JUD-2023-09-28-163

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_OR_LAJ_COPY

NOT_APPLICABLE_TO_ISSUED_ACT

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

Judgment 163/2023 — 28 September 2023
2023-10-30Gil Marer — recurso de apelación contra Sentencia 163/2023
Source identification and statusF360-GIL-CALIFICACION-APPEAL-20231030

EXACT_NATIVE_APPEAL_PRINCIPAL_AND_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

EXACT_NATIVE_PRINCIPAL_SHA256_MATCH

Earlier and later acts
Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

GIL: filed appeal
GIL: filing receipt
2023-10-30Pink y Patricia — recurso de apelación contra Sentencia 163/2023
Source identification and statusF360-PINK-PATRICIA-CALIFICACION-APPEAL-20231031

EXACT_NATIVE_APPEAL_PRINCIPAL_AND_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

EXACT_NATIVE_PRINCIPAL_SHA256_MATCH

Earlier and later acts
Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

PINK: filed appeal
PINK: filing receipt
2023-10-31Gil Marer — escrito aportando justificante del depósito del recurso de apelación
Source identification and statusF360-GIL-DEPOSIT-SUBMISSION-20231031

EXACT_NATIVE_DEPOSIT_PLEADING_AND_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

EXACT_NATIVE_PRINCIPAL_SHA256_MATCH

Earlier and later acts
Detailed status retained in the verification record.

Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

Gil: deposit submission — 31 October 2023
Gil: deposit-submission receipt — 31 October 2023
2023-11-01LPB — recurso de apelación contra Sentencia 163/2023
Source identification and statusF360-LPB-CALIFICACION-APPEAL-20231102

EXACT_NATIVE_APPEAL_PRINCIPAL_AND_LINKED_RECEIPT_VERIFIED

EXACT_NATIVE_PRINCIPAL_SHA256_MATCH

Earlier and later acts
Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

Original principal document matched to its filing receipt.

LPB: filed appeal
LPB: filing receipt
2023-11-06Personación de Gil Marer — 6 de noviembre de 2023
Source identification and statusC36-LAJ-2023-11-06-GIL-APPEARANCE

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_OR_LAJ_COPY

NOT_APPLICABLE_TO_ISSUED_ACT

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

Gil: appearance recognised — 6 November 2023
2023-11-06Recursos de Gil y Pink/Patricia tenidos por interpuestos — 6 de noviembre de 2023
Source identification and statusC36-LAJ-2023-11-06-GIL-PINK-APPEALS

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_OR_LAJ_COPY

NOT_APPLICABLE_TO_ISSUED_ACT

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

Gil and Patricia/PINK: appeals timely and interposed — 6 November 2023
2023-11-06Requerimiento de acreditación del depósito de LPB — 6 de noviembre de 2023
Source identification and statusC36-LAJ-2023-11-06-LPB-DEPOSIT

ISSUED_JUDICIAL_OR_LAJ_COPY

NOT_APPLICABLE_TO_ISSUED_ACT

Earlier and later acts
Copy of a judicial or court-office act.

Authority act or service record; it is not a party pleading.

LPB: direction to prove the deposit — 6 November 2023

The historical record and its relationships are preserved below. Recovered contextual links describe historical navigation; they are not a new determination of a close legal connection.

INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · CLASSIFICATION SECTION · DI 248/2018 · JUDGMENT 163/2023

The culpable insolvency classification of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.

A materially adverse first-instance judgment under appeal. A direct documentary link to DI 248/2018. And a record showing that important allegations against Gil Marer were rejected, narrowed or remain specifically disputed rather than having been validated as one undifferentiated accusation package.

Insolvency administration

Francisco Borja Rodríguez-Batllori

Insolvency Administrator

Ordinary Insolvency 36/2012 · Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.

Public Prosecution Service

Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo

Public Prosecutor

Signatory of the classification opinion dated 12 March 2019.

Court

Alberto López Villarrubia

Judge · Mercantile Court No. 1, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

Judgment 163/2023 · 28 September 2023.

Three different functions. Three different institutional responsibilities.

Por Derecho does not collapse them into a collective actor. It tests what each person alleged or decided, what contrary material was available to that actor, what the judgment itself rejected, and what remains contested on appeal.

THE STARTING POINT

What is a culpable insolvency classification?

The Spanish concept is the classification of the insolvency proceeding as culpable (calificación culpable). It is not, by itself, a criminal conviction and it does not mean that a person has been found guilty of a crime.

In an ordinary insolvency, this track asks whether the insolvency of the debtor company was fortuitous or whether legally relevant intentional or grossly negligent conduct generated or aggravated it. It may identify affected persons or accomplices and carry serious personal and patrimonial consequences.

In simple terms, the central question is:

“Was this company's insolvency fortuitous, or did legally relevant conduct by particular persons generate or aggravate it?”

Its normal purpose is not automatically to determine ownership of third-party assets, physical control of an entire mixed-ownership complex, authority to market that complex, what title was represented to operators or investors, or what later checks were required for RIC, regional incentives or ERDF/FEDER funding.

Temporal regime: Judgment 163/2023 states that former Insolvency Act Article 164.1 applies because of the date on which the classification section was opened. Insolvency Act 22/2003 (BOE).

THE MISSING BRIDGE

DI 248/2018 and the classification were directly connected by Fiscalía itself

This is no longer a contextual theory. The primary documents show the sequence.

Gil/Aweswell complain against AC/CAM

DI 248/2018 reverses the earlier procedural roles: Gil and Aweswell are complainants asking Fiscalía to investigate conduct attributed to the insolvency administrator and CAM.

DI 248 is expanded

The expansion seeks investigation of the AC and statements from José Daniel Acosta Matos and Laura Acosta Matos. It also states that measures were being taken to conclude LPB's insolvency under former Article 176 LC and that the necessary financing had been obtained.

Fiscal classification opinion

Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo signs a two-page opinion asking that LPB's insolvency be classified as culpable and seeking severe personal and patrimonial consequences.

DI 248 archive cites the classification against the complainant

Fiscal Elena Herrera Rodríguez expressly invokes the fact that “este Ministerio” had already reported the insolvency as culpable and Gil responsible, including for alleged failure to collaborate with the AC.

The documentary point.

The Ministerio Fiscal used its own adverse classification position about Gil as part of the reasoning in the decision on Gil/Aweswell's complaint against the AC/CAM perimeter. That is an objective institutional connection.

What it raises: a serious question of institutional circularity, anchoring and asymmetric credibility allocation — allegations arising in the insolvency lane helped form an adverse prosecutorial frame, and that frame was then invoked when the same complainant asked Fiscalía to investigate the AC/CAM side.

Actor separation: Ricardo de Mosteyrín signed the 12 March classification opinion. Elena Herrera signed the 7 May DI 248 archive decree. This page does not claim that Ricardo personally decided DI 248 or that the two prosecutors personally coordinated.

A facial contradiction in the Fiscal opinion.

The 12 March 2019 opinion literally lists as a ground a “situación de insolvencia agravada por dolo o culpa del administrador concursal” — fault or intent of the insolvency administrator — and then identifies Gil Marer and Uri Omid, the social administrators, as responsible. It may be a drafting error. What is objective is that the text says it. Por Derecho reproduces the contradiction rather than silently repairing it.

Primary documents: 9. P248-2018 Ampliacion fiscaliala AC 14ENE19.pdf; Fiscalía-Mercantil Sección Calificación - 12MAR2019.pdf; 1.Decreto Archivo Fiscalia 248-2018 07MAY2019.pdf.

READING RULE

An adverse judgment should not be hidden. Nor should rejected allegations be presented as if the Court accepted them.

DocumentedJudgment 163/2023 partially grants the application and classifies LPB's insolvency as culpable.
Procedural statusAppeals were filed against the judgment; first instance and finality are kept separate.
Essential boundaryThe debtor was LPB. Sun Park as a mixed-ownership complex was not one insolvency estate.

Por Derecho's position is not that the judgment does not exist. It is that the reader must see exactly what was alleged, exactly what the Court rejected or narrowed, exactly what remained adverse, and exactly how those adverse findings are challenged.

ACCUSATION → TEST

What happened to the accusation package when the Court itself tested it?

Several material allegations advanced in the classification lane did not survive in the form in which they were advanced. Others were narrowed. Two important adverse findings remain under specific appellate attack.

PropositionWhat Judgment 163/2023 saysStatus
General failure to pursue CEXP / third-party credits aggravated insolvencyThe Court rejects culpability on this branch, citing difficulty of recovery and insufficient causal justification in the AC report.Rejected
The €737,338.85 entry meant LPB effectively owed money to itselfThe Court accepts the contrary expert explanation that it represented a valid LPB credit.Rejected / corrected
Concealment / alzamiento / connivance constructionsBoth concealment branches are rejected: the pledged deposit and PINK/England theory. Connivance is uncorroborated in that branch; the judgment infers it in the separate rent branch and retains PINK’s complicity there.Rejected
Gil failed to request insolvency in timeThe Court expressly says the delay was not imputable to Gil after his January 2012 appointment and subsequent Article 5 bis / insolvency sequence.Rejected as to Gil
Gil/LPB simply failed to supply accounting materialThe judgment expressly records that LPB delivered the accounting documentation it had. The adverse dispute is narrower: whether the accounting legally satisfied the statutory duty, particularly the Libro Diario.Narrowed
General non-collaboration with the ACThe accepted finding is narrowed to supporting material for specified CEXP credits. The judgment says it is unknown whether the underlying actions would have succeeded, yet says the omission aggravated insolvency.Adverse / disputed
Deficit liability sought by AC and Ministerio FiscalRejected because the request was not justified; the Court says it could not supply the missing case itself without affecting defence rights.Rejected
Failure to collect rent from Pink Canary aggravated insolvencyAccepted as an adverse finding. The appeal attacks the reasoning, including the Court's presumption about operating profitability rather than a proved income calculation.Adverse / appealed
The strongest truthful formulation is not “every allegation was judicially found false.”

That would itself be inaccurate. The judgment accepted some serious allegations. But it is equally inaccurate to say the AC/Fiscal accusation package was validated. The judgment itself rejects or narrows important branches, while the remaining adverse findings are challenged proposition by proposition on appeal.

GIL MARER'S ALLEGATION

“They lied about what I did and did not do.” How Por Derecho tests that allegation

Gil Marer alleges that material accusations made about his conduct were false and, where the relevant actor demonstrably held the contrary documents or had themselves participated in the contrary event, knowingly false.

This page does not ask the reader to accept that conclusion on assertion. It places each accusation beside the contemporaneous document, the later judicial rejection or narrowing, the appeal ground and the actor-specific knowledge record.

The evidential threshold is simple: contradiction + knowledge. A false statement can be shown from documents. A knowingly false statement additionally requires evidence that the speaker knew the contrary fact when making it.

THE COUNTER-RECORD

Efforts to preserve, operate and save LPB and the hotel perimeter, 2012–2026

FEB 2012
Viability and revenue planning. The primary viability plan already records direct-to-market channels including Summers Villages, Sun Park Living and a proposed tour-operator lane.
APR–JUN 2012
Protective insolvency sequence. The Article 5 bis route and later voluntary insolvency filing followed Gil's January appointment. Sentencia 163/2023 itself says the filing delay was not attributable to Gil.
2012–2016
Operation, maintenance and accounting material. The record contains continued hotel-operation/maintenance expenditure and delivery of company accounting material. The judgment disputes legal sufficiency but does not support the simple proposition that nothing was supplied.
2017–2018
Protection of control, value and perimeter. Gil/Aweswell challenged access/control and CAM-related liquidation consequences; the 26 June 2018 suspension became a formal judicial checkpoint.
JAN 2019
Financed exit effort inside the material classification period. The DI 248 expansion expressly states that measures were being taken to conclude the insolvency under former Article 176 LC and that the necessary financing had been obtained.
APR–JUN 2019
Formal opposition to culpable classification. LPB/Gil opposed the classification case rather than acquiescing in the accusations.
2020–2022
Debt, value, title and realization challenges. Repeated filings and warnings concerned calculation of the secured debt/interest, value, title/perimeter, bidding and irreversible asset realization. The complete evidence-before-court matrix remains under reconstruction.
OCT–NOV 2023
Appeals. Sentencia 163/2023 was challenged before the January-2025 newsroom episode.
2025–2026
Recovery and preservation continue. Evidence-preservation, court, prosecutorial, regulatory and public-accountability routes continue, with restoration/recovery — not punishment for its own sake — as the controlling Por Derecho objective.

This chronology does not prove that every step taken by Gil/LPB was legally correct or economically successful. It does directly test any categorical portrayal of his conduct as mere abandonment, obstruction or refusal to save the debtor.

THE STRONGEST ACTOR-SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

What Por Derecho can responsibly allege now

Insolvency Administrator

Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori

Strong allegation: the AC advanced a broad culpability narrative that was materially overbroad: the Court itself rejected or narrowed multiple branches of it.

Knowledge issue: where receipt/custody records prove that the AC personally held documents showing accounting delivery, rescue/exit financing, requests for assistance or contrary title/perimeter facts, Por Derecho alleges that categorical contrary portrayals were materially selective and, for those specific propositions, made despite contrary information available to him.

Still open: The 8 September 2026 recovery provides the complete 47-page AC report as a reviewed public copy. Its complete annex set and proof of knowledge of each contrary document remain open; possession of the report does not itself establish knowing falsehood.

Ministerio Fiscal

Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo

Strong allegation: the two-page Fiscal opinion adopted an exceptionally severe accusation package and requested a 15-year disqualification, damages and deficit liability with limited individualized reasoning visible on the face of that document. Several propositions were later rejected or narrowed, and the deficit request was expressly rejected for lack of justification.

Textual defect: it says the insolvency was aggravated by the intent/fault of the administrador concursal while naming Gil/Uri as responsible.

Institutional bridge: the Ministerio Fiscal's own adverse classification position was then invoked by Elena Herrera when archiving DI 248 — the complaint against the AC/CAM perimeter.

Judgment 163/2023

Alberto López Villarrubia

Strong allegation: the adverse reasoning contains material internal tensions: a profitability proposition rests on presumption; the non-collaboration finding acknowledges uncertainty about recovery yet attributes aggravation; and that causal reasoning sits uneasily beside the earlier rejection of general CEXP-credit culpability.

Procedural issue on appeal: the judgment records the July 2023 hearing with AC, Fiscal and LPB representation present; Gil's appeal alleges he, Patricia and Pink were left without their own counsel after a last-minute withdrawal and a refused suspension request.

Knowing-falsehood threshold: Por Derecho does not yet state as an adjudicated fact that the Judge knowingly lied. That allegation must be tied to certified proof that the precise contrary material was actually before him for the precise finding challenged.

WHY?

Motive: what the documents permit us to investigate — not what they permit us to declare as fact

AC · defence of the administration/liquidation path

A plausible non-exclusive motive is defence of the AC's own prior administration and of the liquidation/disposition route already being pursued, including matters Gil/Aweswell were challenging in DI 248. This is an inference, not proof of corruption or private coordination.

Fiscalía · institutional anchoring

The DI 248 sequence supports investigation of institutional anchoring: once an adverse AC/classification frame existed, the same institution later invoked that frame against the complainant when deciding his complaint against the opposite perimeter. It does not prove personal malice by either prosecutor.

Court · institutional path dependence

A legitimate hypothesis is path dependence: preserving coherence with an existing insolvency/liquidation trajectory and earlier judicial acts. That is not, without more, evidence of bias, retaliation, prevaricación or an agreement with CAM.

JANUARY 2025 · ELECONOMISTA

A non-final LPB judgment used in a much wider newsroom dispute

The newsroom was investigating matters wider than the classification of LPB: Meeting Point/FTI commercialisation, property and authority, RIC/RICPE, investment, public incentives and European funding.

The preserved 16–20 January chronology strongly supports that Sentencia 163/2023 was supplied or procured through the CAM/Acosta Matos response channel initiated by Laura Patricia Acosta Matos. The exact physical sender/account remains unresolved.

The supplied file was labelled AUTO CONCURSO CULPOSO. It was actually Sentencia 163/2023, a materially adverse first-instance judgment in LPB's classification, already appealed. It did not determine title to the whole mixed-ownership Sun Park complex or decide the later Meeting Point, RIC, regional-incentive or ERDF/FEDER questions.

Por Derecho's allegation: this is a documented scope mismatch and supports an allegation of extra-procedural instrumentalisation: a non-final LPB classification judgment functioned in the newsroom exchange as a reason the broader investigation did not proceed, despite not adjudicating many of its central questions. The evidence does not yet prove that Laura personally sent the file or personally misrepresented its finality.

Open the full elEconomista evidence page →

DECIDED / REJECTED / OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER

What Judgment 163/2023 does — and does not — do

Partially granted

The judgment classifies LPB's insolvency as culpable and imposes consequences on identified persons and companies. Gil is ordered to pay €3,032,010.34 with the interest specified in the operative order. His ten-year disqualification period starts from finality; finality is not certified here.

It also rejected claims

The court did not accept every theory put before it. It rejected material asset-concealment constructions, late filing as against Gil and the requested insolvency-deficit liability, and narrowed the non-collaboration case.

It did not decide

It did not adjudicate all Sun Park real estate, turn Matkator or other owners into LPB's estate, or by itself determine Meeting Point/FTI authority, RICPE/RIC, regional incentives, ERDF/FEDER or every later act in the MYND operation.

THE CENTRAL IDEA

One procedural life inside the insolvency. Several parallel lives outside it.

While LPB's insolvency followed its court process, other layers of the same complex continued or acquired different legal and economic lives. The investigation must identify, layer by layer, which asset or right was used, who had authority to use it, and what information later reached operators, investors and public authorities.

1 · Insolvency life

LPB · estate · Insolvency Administrator · liquidation · classification · appeals.

2 · Property / title

LPB · Matkator · third-party owners · PH122→CAM credit · later adjudication/dation acts · CAM/HNT. Later title does not retrospectively settle earlier authority.

3 · Material control

Access · keys · security · reception · circulation · staff · guests · technicians · works. Formal title, legal possession and de facto control must remain separate.

4 · Commercial life

Sun Park · Lava Verde · Club Sei Lanzarote · Meeting Point/FTI · MYND. Documented public marketing does not replace production of contracts, inventory, authority, bookings, commissions and revenue.

5 · Capital / investment

Project · RICPE · RIC capital · financing. The title, availability and asset perimeter represented at each date must be reconstructed.

6 · Institutional life

Authorisations · regional incentives · expressly identified ERDF/FEDER component · later operation. Each gatekeeper requires its own matrix of information received, checks and decisions.

TWO-PLANE CHRONOLOGY

The classification proceeding and the hotel's economic life did not move along one line

LPB enters Insolvency 36/2012. DOCUMENTED

The declaration concerns Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.; it does not turn all Sun Park into one estate.

CAM enters the credit track. DOCUMENTED

Assignment of the mortgage credit and ownership of the hotel complex are distinct questions.

The sixth/classification section is opened. DOCUMENTED
Material-control threshold. PERIMETER UNDER VERIFICATION

The controlled archive supports a material/access and operational-control shift involving CAM-linked/Community actors. Gil Marer alleges that the cumulative effect amounted to practical possession of the hotel as an operating whole; it is not presented as a judicial transfer of whole-hotel title or legal possession.

Suspension order. DOCUMENTED

Its date must remain distinct from the 7 June material event.

DI 248 role reversal. DOCUMENTED

Gil/Aweswell complain against the AC/CAM perimeter while the earlier adverse criminal lane remained active.

DI 248 expansion and financed exit allegation. DOCUMENTED

The expansion seeks investigation of the AC/CAM side and states that financing had been obtained for an Article 176 conclusion route.

Public Prosecutor's classification opinion. DOCUMENTED

Signed by Ricardo de Mosteyrín Sampalo.

DI 248 archived using the MF classification frame. DOCUMENTED

Signed by Elena Herrera Rodríguez; the decree expressly cites the Ministerio Fiscal's adverse classification position about Gil.

Oppositions and adversarial process. DOCUMENTED

LPB, Gil Marer and later Pink Canary/Patricia opposed the classification on the dates recorded in the judgment.

Club Sei Lanzarote appears publicly within the Meeting Point/FTI ecosystem at Calle Janubio 3. DOCUMENTED

This supports a public presentation/distribution layer; contracts, precise authority, inventory and economic flows remain production questions.

The project enters the RICPE/investment track. TRACEABILITY OPEN

Governance, due diligence, represented title, conditions and use of funds require document-by-document review.

Later adjudication/dation and CAM→HNT acts. DOCUMENTED

Later formal acquisition cannot automatically become retrospective authority for earlier acts.

Judgment 163/2023. DOCUMENTED

A partial and materially adverse first-instance outcome within LPB's insolvency track.

Appeals against the judgment. DOCUMENTED

First instance and eventual finality are not conflated.

The appealed judgment enters the elEconomista response chain. DOCUMENTED / PROVENANCE INFERENCE

The CAM/Acosta Matos response provenance is strongly supported; the physical transmitter remains unresolved.

MYND · regional incentives · ERDF/FEDER · financial/institutional continuity. AUDIT OPEN

Public financing or support does not itself prove fraud; it increases the need to reconstruct what was declared and what each body verified.

SIX DOCUMENTARY LIVES

The same hotel can look different depending on which file is opened

Insolvency

What belonged to LPB, the Administrator's powers and what the Court decided.

Real estate

Property by property: LPB, Matkator, third parties, CAM/HNT and acquisition dates.

Material

Who could enter, exclude, measure, refurbish, show or control practical operation.

Operational / commercial

Which hotel was offered to the market, under which brand, by whom and with what inventory.

Financial

Which asset/project was presented to RICPE/RIC capital and on what basis of availability.

Public / institutional

Which property, operating and financial basis supported permissions, regional incentives and ERDF/FEDER.

WHAT SHOULD STILL BE PRODUCIBLE

Finite questions before further upgrades

Insolvency Administrator

The 47-page report is recovered and available above. Still open: every annex, proof of receipt/knowledge of each contrary document, and testing the basis of each accusation and requested consequence.

Ministerio Fiscal

Complete DI 248 expediente and diligences; the 25 April 2019 rent expert report; source record behind the 12 March opinion; and actor-specific knowledge rather than institutional assumption.

Court / hearing

Certified July-2023 hearing record, notices, counsel-withdrawal communication, suspension request/disposition and complete evidence-before-court matrix for each adverse finding.

Appeal

Certified Audiencia Provincial docket, current status and eventual determination of the specific contradiction, motivation and indefensión grounds.

elEconomista provenance

Native inbound message/header identifying the physical sender of Sentencia 163/2023 and any accompanying representation concerning finality or scope.

Actor-specific knowledge

For every allegation said to be knowingly false: exact contrary document → exact recipient/custody event → date → later statement → incompatibility analysis.

JUDICIAL DOCUMENT

Sentencia 163/2023

The January-2025 copy was labelled AUTO CONCURSO CULPOSO, but the document is a Sentencia dated 28 September 2023. It will be preserved with its procedural status and a policy of minimising non-essential personal data. Its adverse findings, rejected claims and operative provisions should remain visible together.

Evidence status: the 12 March 2019 Fiscal opinion, January-2019 DI 248 expansion, 7 May 2019 DI 248 archive decree, 2023 judgment and Gil's appeal have now been re-queried. 8 September 2026 update: the 47-page AC report, prosecution opinion, judgment, all three exact appeals and their receipts are available in the document reader. Complete report annexes, the full DI 248 file and certified hearing, service and appellate-outcome records remain open.

LPB Insolvency* →Material control 7 June 2018 →Lava Verde / Club Sei / Meeting Point →RIC · incentives · funds →elEconomista January 2025 →

The rule of this page

Truth is not made safer by making it weaker. Material contradictions should be stated plainly. So should serious adverse findings. The protection against overstatement is source discipline, not euphemism.

Por Derecho therefore separates: what is documented; what the first-instance Judge found; what that same judgment rejected; what is alleged on appeal; what contrary knowledge can be attributed to each actor; and what remains an inference about intent or motive.

This page makes identified evidence-based allegations of materially false, selective or internally contradictory representations where the source record permits them. It does not present unadjudicated criminal, disciplinary or corrupt intent as an established fact.