LPB’s position
In December 2017 it maintained that the credits were litigious and requested assignment information in order to preserve its rights.
20 OCTOBER 2017 → 6 DECEMBER 2017 → 19 DECEMBER 2017 → 15 FEBRUARY 2018
The PH122 → Construcciones Acosta Matos assignment requires four questions to be kept separate: what credit was assigned, for what amount, at what price and with what opportunity to challenge it.
This record does not declare that the credit was technically “litigious” for Article 1535 purposes, or that the assignment was invalid. It publishes the documentary dispute that existed before and after the assignment and identifies the material still needed to resolve it.
CONTROLLING ADVERSE DECISION
The 15 February 2018 order expressly rejected LPB’s litigious-credit argument, recognised Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. as the assignee and also corrected part of the amounts in LPB's favour. The order further reasoned that complete title documentation was not required for the creditor change because the insolvency administration had reported favourably and was presumed to have verified the requirements. That mixed and adverse ruling is central to this record.
What is documented
| Date | Source | What it directly establishes |
|---|---|---|
| 12 July 2016 | Formal LPB communication to the insolvency administration | LPB’s side had raised a quantified dispute over the banking liabilities before the assignment. These are party allegations; the existence and quantified nature of the dispute are documented. |
| 20 October 2017 | Assignment identified in later records | Promontoria Holding 122 B.V. assigned the identified mortgage credits against LPB to Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A. The instrument is identified as notarial protocol 2,248. |
| 6 December 2017 | LPB demand to assignor, assignee and advisers | LPB said it learned of the assignment on 29 November, said it had not received the complete information and expressly requested the deed and price so it could preserve whatever rights were available. The litigious-credit characterisation was LPB’s legal position, not a judicial determination. |
| 19 December 2017 | Order · Preliminary Proceedings 1041/2017 · Court of First Instance No. 2 Las Palmas | The court found just cause and legitimate interest and allowed the requested preliminary measure for production of the assignment deed, precise price, payment information and costs, subject to security. |
| 12 January 2018 | Procedural act · PP 1041/2017 | The proceeding set opposition mechanics and, absent opposition, a 19 February appearance, with procedural consequences for unjustified non-appearance. The information route was operational. |
| 15 February 2018 | Order · Insolvency 36/2012 · Commercial Court No. 1 Las Palmas | It rejected LPB’s litigious-credit classification; recognised CAM as assignee; partially corrected amounts; and said that all title documentation supporting CAM need not be produced because the insolvency administration had reported favourably and its verification was presumed. The order provided a five-day reconsideration route without suspensive effect. |
Date correction. The primary copy re-verified on 19 August 2026 is dated 15 February 2018. Earlier references on this page to 8 February are superseded for this order unless a distinct primary act is later produced.
Important limit on the 19 December order. Admission establishes that the court found the request appropriate and found just cause and legitimate interest. It does not by itself prove unlawful conduct by CAM, final non-compliance with the measure, or that the assignment price necessarily produced any particular legal outcome.
Article 1535: the technical legal question remains controlled
Spain’s Civil Code provides in Article 1535 for the consequences of a sale of a litigious credit and states that a credit is considered litigious from the point at which the claim relating to it has been answered.
Later Supreme Court case law applies a strict concept of litigious credit. An economic dispute or mortgage-enforcement proceedings therefore do not by themselves establish that every technical Article 1535 requirement was met on 20 October 2017.
Commercial Court ruling
On 15 February 2018 it rejected that classification and recognised CAM, with the amount corrections stated in the order.
Current status: a documented dispute exists, together with a judicial ruling adverse to LPB’s theory. The technical Article 1535 analysis remains open to the complete pre-assignment procedural record and the appeal/finality chain.
The estate-interest question that now requires an answer
The new point is not that LPB had a certain winning claim. It is that LPB had obtained a judicial route to the deed and transaction economics while, in parallel, CAM obtained insolvency recognition with express reliance on the insolvency administration's favourable report.
Question: if PP 1041/2017 ended or lost its utility before producing that value, what measurable benefit did LPB or the estate obtain in return?
The current reconstruction has not yet located a debt reduction, settlement consideration, enforcement-risk limitation or contemporaneous cost-benefit analysis that answers that question.
Production needed to close the record
PH122 / assignor
Complete deed and schedules; balance loan by loan; total and allocated price; payment date/proof; adjustments and servicing.
Construcciones Acosta Matos / assignee
Instrument received, price and payment; acquired balance; support for each figure; material supplied to the insolvency administration, enforcement court and insolvency proceeding; compliance with and outcome of PP 1041/2017.
Insolvency administration
What complete documentation it reviewed before reporting favourably; how it verified title, amounts and continuity; and what estate-interest analysis it made concerning LPB's information route.
Judicial records
Relevant declaratory proceeding before 20 October 2017; complete 1041/2017 file and final act; reconsideration/appeal/finality chain for the 15 February 2018 order; complete Mortgage Enforcement 90/2012.
Controlled conclusion
Fact: LPB had raised a prior dispute; formally requested the deed and price; another court admitted a measure to obtain that information; the insolvency administration reported favourably on the creditor change; and the Commercial Court recognised CAM, rejected the litigious-credit theory and expressly relied on the administration's verification rather than requiring all title documentation.
Open question: why the final distribution of effects — continuation/recognition of the CAM credit against loss of value in the LPB route — was beneficial to the estate and where that analysis is recorded.
Evidence-led publication. It is not a judicial determination and does not declare fraud, unlawful concealment, collusion, improper favouritism or criminal responsibility. All parties are invited to provide the complete deed, later rulings, explanations and exculpatory or corrective material.