The central issue is no longer a recalculation of interest: it is whether the transaction implemented retained the identity of the transaction authorised
The signed 25 January 2021 order, the 29 January court notice and deed no. 457 dated 21 February 2022 now allow recognised insolvency credit, mortgage liability, the threshold imposed on a third party, the debt stated as consideration for the dación and the separate sale of non-mortgaged assets to be compared directly. The decisive issue is the documentary bridge between each function.
Primary notarial source recovered · legal reconstruction remains open
Owner-selected placeholder — provisional, not evidence
This generated diagram is preserved as a provisional illustration. Its claim that no criminal or EOMF action followed is too broad: proceedings and archive decisions existed. The allegation concerns inadequate investigation, protection or supervision. Later 2021–2022 decisions cannot have caused a belief in 2019. Plan approval, physical possession, definitive disposal and conveyance are different events.
Whole-image AVIF display copy, with lossy compression. Open the image for the byte-exact full-resolution original PNG, preserved separately. This generated illustration is not primary evidence or a verified chronology. Its original English composition is retained on both language pages.
Scope limit. A documentary or accounting mismatch does not by itself prove nullity, fraud, surplus, bad faith or liability. The more precise question is: which act authorised each change in legal or economic function between offer, competitive publicity, adjudication, deed, Registry and accounting?
Signed judicial orderCourt noticePrimary deed no. 457Party procedural filingImplementation evidence still open
Three primary sources materially sharpen the analysis
EUR 3,079,104.66 → EUR 3,182,000
the EUR 102,895.34 movement has a documentary explanation
The signed 25 January 2021 order reproduces the Provincial Court default-interest amount and later daily accrual until the mortgage-liability cap was reached. This explains the arithmetic movement; it does not by itself determine its classification as finally recognised insolvency credit.
EUR 13,168,082.02
the same figure appears in two different contexts
The 29 January 2021 notice derives it as the sum of the two mortgage components required from a third-party better bidder. Deed no. 457 later uses EUR 13,168,082.02 as the debt serving as consideration for the dación. The numerical identity is now verified; the legal bridge between those functions and the lawfully set-off insolvency credit remains to be demonstrated.
EUR 400,000
the premises line remains separate
The notice separately states EUR 400,000 for assets outside the special privilege. In the reviewed operative and judicial-recap portions of deed no. 457, the dación concerns the mortgaged properties; those sections do not expressly re-execute the premises/pools sale or reconcile the 2018 cash payment.
EUR 14,713,880.31
quantified conditions for a third party
This is the sum of both mortgage components, the EUR 400,000 and EUR 1,145,798.29 in community fees, before then-unquantified taxes and costs. It must not automatically be converted into CAM's price or recognised credit.
EUR 14.8m
the competition ceased to be hypothetical
A third-party bidder documented an acquisition proposal dated 8 February 2021 for EUR 14.8 million covering the identified property perimeter. The bidder's identity is deliberately anonymised in the public record. Procedural filing, authority/funds and treatment at the licitation still require documentary closure.
5 calendar days
the deed creates a verifiable downstream trail
Deed no. 457 requires the insolvency administrator to communicate it to the Mercantile Court within five calendar days and sets out cancellation requests. The next control point is the actual court filing, order/mandamiento and Registry implementation.
The same number can perform different legal functions: the transition must be proved
Reading rule: recognised credit ≠ mortgage liability ≠ third-party bid threshold ≠ debt stated as consideration in the dación ≠ Registry value ≠ any insolvency surplus.
Amount
Source currently controlled
Function that can be stated
What cannot be presumed
EUR 3,079,104.66
25 January 2021 order, reciting the 23 July 2019 Provincial Court decision
First-rank default interest within the better-bid calculation, with later daily accrual.
That it was automatically the final privileged credit to be set off.
EUR 3,182,000
25 January order + 29 January notice
Mortgage cap reached and component required from a third-party better bidder.
That the cap automatically became recognised insolvency credit.
EUR 13,168,082.02
29 January 2021 notice + deed no. 457, pp. 28–29
January: mortgage-component better-bid subtotal. February: debt stated as consideration for the dación.
That numerical identity alone proves the legal correctness/classification of the credit or the absence of any residual.
EUR 400,000
Notice + sale structure quoted in the 2022 appeals
Separate component for assets not affected by special privilege.
That it was absorbed, refunded, set off or legally regularised without the banking/notarial/Registry/accounting chain.
EUR 14.8m
Third-party bidder proposal dated 8 February 2021
Concrete documented competitive proposal.
That it was admitted, fully funded or wrongly excluded without the licitation record.
The competition was real; its outcome still needs reconstruction
A stronger control point. The court notice did not open a merely theoretical possibility: a third-party bidder documented a EUR 14.8m proposal. That permits an objective inquiry into how the proposal was tested against the published conditions and why the process ultimately ended with CAM's proposal.
The website deliberately anonymises the third-party bidder's identity. For the relevant insolvency question, its procedural and economic function is enough: a EUR 14.8m proposal existed against then-quantified components totalling EUR 14,713,880.31, before additional taxes and costs that were not yet quantified. That nominal comparison does not resolve the remaining conditions. Court filing, authority, funds, judicial communications, 18 May 2021 attendance and exact procedural treatment remain to be closed.
Do not pre-judge the result. A EUR 14.8m offer does not by itself prove that the third party met every requirement or should have received the adjudication. It does make the competitive process a material, verifiable control point.
Authorised transaction versus notarial implementation
Offer / Plan · 2018
The documentary record reconstructs a dación of mortgaged properties, a separate EUR 400,000 sale of non-mortgaged assets and a waiver clause whose wording and effect must be reconciled against the later acts.
Definitive authorisation · 2021
The 2022 appeals reproduce the 18 May 2021 order as approving the proposal contained in the plan: apartments by dación in payment of privileged credits and premises/pools by a separate EUR 400,000 direct sale.
Deed no. 457 · 21 February 2022
Primary source recovered: 76 pages. The deed transfers the described mortgaged properties to CAM and states EUR 13,168,082.02 as the debt serving as consideration for the dación. It also requires communication to the court within five days and sets out downstream cancellation requests. The legal correctness of the amount and actual Registry/accounting consequences must be proved separately.
The identity question is now more concrete. It is no longer disputed whether EUR 13,168,082.02 appears in the deed: it does. The issue is which title turns the competitive-threshold figure into debt legally usable as consideration for the dación, how that reconciles with the definitive texts and what consequence followed for the estate.
The deed also separates what it proves from what remains open
It proves
The deed's identity, protocol 457, date, appearances, conveyance of the described properties, stated debt consideration and the communication/cancellation obligations and requests.
It does not prove by itself
That every credit component was legally correct and finally privileged, that community/tax obligations were actually paid, that the Registry cancelled exactly as requested or that the estate had no residual.
Its existence does not automatically cure
The separate 2018 premises/pools transaction that was not judicially validated in 2019. The later title, entry and economic treatment that may have regularised that line must be identified.
What remains needed to close the chain
Definitive orders: signed originals of 18 May 2021 and 15 October 2021 and the complete January 2022 act family; the deed recites a 22 January 2022 order while earlier references used 26 January.
2021 and 2022 testimonios: full contents and notarial/Registry use; the 325/646-page counts are not published as fact unless verified.
Interest: CAM certificate/calculation taking EUR 3,079,104.66 to the EUR 3,182,000 cap, including days, rate, service and challenge.
Third-party bidder: procedural filing, authority/funds evidence and the minute or recording of the 18 May 2021 licitation.
Post-deed communication: court filing within/after five days, ensuing order/mandamiento and Registry cancellation date.
EUR 400,000: bank evidence, ledger, effect of the 2019 non-validation, any refund/retention/set-off and the final premises/pools title.
Waiver: exact original clause and any later act preserving, modifying or extinguishing it.
Final accounts: complete bridge from credit and interest through dación, payments, cancellations and any residual.
How this strengthens the position without overstating it
1. It replaces an inference with a notarial fact
EUR 13,168,082.02 no longer depends on a later summary: the deed verifies it as debt serving as consideration for the dación. That makes the title-and-classification question materially more concrete.
2. It adds a real market-control point
The anonymous EUR 14.8m third-party proposal allows the published threshold, actual competition, outcome and estate benefit to be compared without turning the bidder into a public protagonist.
3. It separates apartments from premises
The primary deed strengthens the closing chain for the mortgaged properties by dación, but it cannot be used as an automatic answer to the separate premises/pools and EUR 400,000 problem.
Proportionate relief. First reconstruct title, debt, accounts and the correspondence between authorisation and implementation. Only then can counsel assess accounting correction, integration of a proven residual, partial ineffectiveness, retroaction or another remedy.
Validation status
Topic
Status
Next control
25 January 2021 order
Primary signed judicial source located
Bind underlying interest certificate/calculation and exact Provincial Court source.
29 January 2021 court notice
Primary court source located
Keep the legal functions of EUR 13.168m, EUR 400,000 and community fees separate.
Third-party proposal · EUR 14.8m
Document located; identity publicly anonymised
Close filing, authority/funds and licitation treatment.
Deed no. 457 · 21 February 2022
Primary notarial source recovered and reviewed
Reconcile debt, orders, court communication, mandamiento, Registry and accounts.
Premises / EUR 400,000
Separate component established; cure/final title open
Ledger, bank, non-validation, later title and Registry chain.
Final accounts / surplus
Primary closure pending
Accounts, balance, bank, cancellations and final decision.
Standing, finality and route
Counsel validation required
Party map, prior decisions, time rules and transitional law.
Corrections and response. This is a living record. A higher-ranked primary source corrects any lower-ranked reconstruction. Documented material that weakens the thesis should be incorporated with the same provenance discipline.