1 · June–September 2018
Funded exit, material control of the hotel, need to preserve and quantify. Daniel Irigoyen is a contemporaneous professional source for testing what was explained, requested and reflected in the court file.
INSOLVENCY 36/2012 · ASSET PROTECTION · ADMINISTRATOR SUPERVISION
What did judicial supervision do when the principal asset needed protection before the outcome became irreversible?
This page does not claim that the judge was the day-to-day manager of the hotel or that every Administrator omission is attributable to the Judge. It reconstructs a narrower question: when a risk reached the Administrator or Court, what reporting/control duty or power existed, what verifiable response followed, and what happened next.
The correct institutional relationship
Insolvency estate → Administrator conservation duty → judicial supervision → specific information where needed → liquidation decisions → final accounting and traceability.
Current insolvency legislation states that the Insolvency Administration is subject to supervision by the insolvency judge and allows the judge to require specific information on matters connected with the case. It also provides for removal for just cause and, in the current wording, serious failures of diligence, impartiality or independence. Historical events must be judged under the law in force at each date; the current provisions are used only to describe the institutional supervision architecture.
Seven nuclei that should be read together
2 · Debt / threshold
Recognised debt, interest, improvement threshold and amount ultimately absorbed are distinct categories. The control question is which act connects each one.
3 · €400,000 / non-validation
The 2019 ruling creates a later reconstruction problem: ownership, possession, money, inventory, accounting and any new title or restitution.
4 · Physical and operating condition
If alteration, blocked access or deterioration is alleged and expert/judicial inspection is refused, the supervisory question is what neutral equivalent replaced that check.
5 · Administrator supervision
What he knew, what he reported, what the Court required, and what alternative control existed when removal or protective measures did not succeed.
6 · 2021 competition
ONA/third-party bidder are assessed through material equality: access, information, perimeter, time, solvency, deposits and comparability of heterogeneous consideration.
7 · 2022+ implementation
Adjudication, court-office acts, deed, cancellation of charges, Registry, post-deed communication and final accounts should form a single reproducible chain.
Judicial Supervision Ledger
| Event | Knowledge | Relevant power/duty | Response to identify | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7–26 June 2018 | Material control / funded exit / disputes | Information, conservation, assistance, estate-perimeter definition | Filings, transfers, requests, suspension and follow-up | Possession/access and later operation |
| July–September 2018 | Patrimonial risk and disputed figure | Require information from Administrator / decide issues submitted | Treatment of conservation and quantification | 28/11/2018 operation |
| 24/10/2019 | Non-validation | Implementation/follow-up of effects of the court's own ruling | Restitution, rectification, reserve or new title | Perimeter used in 2021 |
| 2020–24/02/2021 | Physical condition, access, works, estate | Administrator control / evidential checks | Expert report, inspection or neutral equivalent | Tender |
| May 2021 | Offers and competitive conditions | Direction of liquidation process | Rules, information, access, comparability | Adjudication |
| Jan–Feb 2022 | Object, beneficiary, amount, finality | Decision + procedural implementation | Order, complement, testimony, deed and charges | External registry effects |
| 2025 | Accumulated history of Administrator | Supervision and removal under applicable framework | What facts were checked and what alternative control remained | Administrator continued |
The double perimeter question
Was what belonged to the estate protected sufficiently?
LPB and its property/rights were inside the insolvency. Preservation and value of the productive/hotel unit could be affected by access, works, security, income, possession and loss of competitive value.
Did limited insolvency authority project too far?
Matkator and other owners, third-party rights and certain operating positions were not automatically absorbed. An act originating in the insolvency could have material effects outside the estate without creating title over those assets.
What this file does not establish
It does not establish judicial prevaricación, corruption, collusion or disciplinary responsibility. Nor does it assert that missing supervisory records do not exist. Its function is to require verifiable institutional reconciliation: if the act exists, identify it; if no action was legally required, explain why; if the risk belonged elsewhere, classify and route it correctly.