FORENSIC ECONOMICS · VERSION · CUSTODY · FILING · JUDICIAL USE
A bilingual, source-controlled evidence node for the forensic-economic work in the Sun Park / Luchy Playa Blanca perimeter, its documented incorporation into Concurso 36/2012 and its later use. This is not a promotional biography and does not convert a party expert’s analysis into a judicial determination.
Evidence reviewed and last modified: 25 August 2026.
Public professional sources identify David Espejo Navarro as Founding Partner of Expert Witness Forensic & Compliance (eXW). The firm’s legal notice identifies Four Mirror Advisors, S.L. as the legal entity behind the practice and names Espejo as its representative.
Private contact details, fees, personal correspondence and complete reports carrying reliance or distribution restrictions are not reproduced.
The documented professional relationship extends back to at least 2016 and continued through expert work, economic review and procedural activity. Later correspondence also reflects a cordial or professional-networking dimension. That evolution does not itself decide authorship, methodological independence, filing or evidential weight.
Precise thesis: professional first; not necessarily professional only throughout the relationship’s entire evolution.
Historical integrity. Original reports remain unchanged. Later clarifications, author recollections, additional evidence and consistency reviews are recorded as separate, dated events. A later clarification does not rewrite the historical source.
WORK AND DOCUMENT SEQUENCE
Preserved correspondence records professional assignments, work status and billing before the 2018 reports. It establishes an earlier professional relationship; it is not itself a court-filing index.
The located material supplied factual and documentary background for the assignment. It remains in the client contribution/instruction class unless expert authorship is established and must not be cited as an independent eXW conclusion.
The located copy is marked “Borrador Sujeto a Cambios”. It addresses valuation, unity of exploitation, the Acosta Matos offer and the Actúa valuation. It must not be described as final or signed without a matched final version.
The cover preserves “Concurso Voluntario nº 32/2012”, while the body and context concern LPB’s Concurso 36/2012. The discrepancy is preserved and explained rather than silently corrected.
A signed forensic-economic report concerning the debt recognised in favour of the Community, the Community/CEXP relationship, its evolution, interest, costs and underlying records.
David Espejo delivered four signed final reports to the client/adviser perimeter. In the located LPB opposition, two Espejo expert annexes are identified: document 3, concerning rights/credit against the CEXP, and document 5, concerning the swap and pledged deposit. This conclusion is limited to that pleading and does not prove that the other two signed reports were never used, cited or filed elsewhere.
Court correspondence records summons and intervention arrangements, including Webex. This procedural role is distinct from the earlier party-expert assignment.
The day before his evidence, Espejo told the Court that his copies did not match those contributed to the proceeding and that he had not accessed the optical medium because no reader was available. The record establishes an immediate access barrier and a practical version-identity issue. It does not establish that the medium was defective, corrupt, manipulated or incomplete. Whether he reviewed the exact court-file versions before giving evidence remains unresolved.
The judgment identifies Espejo as a testigo-perito and uses his reports in analysing the CEXP economic position and the swap/pledged-deposit package. It did not declare the concurso culpable on the latter ground, although it reached a partly culpable result on other grounds. Judicial use on defined subissues does not convert every expert conclusion into a judicial finding.
PROVENANCE · FILING · TIMELINESS
Did the analysis exist, and are its date, authorship and version reliable?
Who received it, by what channel, and is receipt evidenced?
Was it formally incorporated into the relevant piece and under which annex number?
What deadline applied, and when was the document actually filed or served?
The draft records that LPB had communicated valuation objections and an intention to obtain independent analysis before the 7 June physical-control event. It is ex ante evidence that the issue was being documented; it does not by itself prove the content, date, recipient or receipt of each underlying notice.
In July 2023 Espejo recalled that the May economic note appeared not to have been filed and that the June note was filed. That recollection is provenance evidence, not a substitute for the certified docket.
Unresolved document match: it has not yet been established that the retrospectively mentioned “May economic note” is exactly the 10 May 2018 valuation/liquidation draft.
Use the term only when the act, applicable deadline and actual filing/service date are established. Not filed ≠ filed late. Discovered later ≠ late filing. A contemporaneous document ≠ automatic court notice.
| Source / event | Version or class | Supportable status | Boundary or consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Professional relationship 2016–2017 | Professional correspondence | Earlier professional relationship documented | Not a court-filing index. |
| 4 May 2018 background | Client contribution | Expert authorship not established | Not an independent eXW conclusion. |
| 10 May 2018 valuation/liquidation | Draft | Final version not matched | Identity with the “May note” recalled in 2023 remains open. |
| 11 June 2018 CEXP note | Expert note | Filed according to the author’s later recollection | Independent docket/receipt match remains outstanding; “32/2012” is preserved on the cover. |
| 10 July 2018 Community-debt report | Signed | Document located | Each incorporation and procedural reuse must be traced. |
| Delivery of four finals, 23 April 2019 | Signed and transmitted | Delivery to client/advisers documented | Transmission alone is not filing. |
| LPB opposition, 23/24 April 2019 | Annexes 3 and 5 | Two expert reports identified in that pleading | Does not prove the other two were never used elsewhere. |
| 24 July 2023 access event | Court correspondence | Access barrier and copy discrepancy documented | Does not prove medium defect or alteration; exact pre-evidence review remains unresolved. |
| 2023 hearing and judgment | Identified judicial use | Documents 3 and 5 used on subissues | Partial judicial use is neither wholesale adoption nor a globally favourable outcome. |
The controlling structured register is published as JSON v2. Primary originals remain in custody outside the public repository.
INFERENCE BOUNDARY
Existence of defined items, signature of four finals, transmission, selection of two annexes, a procedural role and identified judicial use.
That every recipient knew every conclusion, that every report was filed, or that every report had effect across every legal track.
Alteration, illegality, knowledge, causation, responsibility or criminal intent from a version, access or recording discrepancy alone.
The public index uses only the verified name. Spelling variants remain internal search aliases.
“32/2012” is preserved in the June source and explained against the 36/2012 context.
Draft, final, signed, transmitted, annexed, filed and judicially cited are distinct states.
Client contributions and instructions remain separate from expert-authored analysis.
Reuse in another track is a new event; cross-track knowledge or effect is not presumed.
No contacts, fees, family information, confidential strategy or restricted reports are published without separate review.