Aweswell Limited
Original removal application · 23 April 2025
↓ appeal
RPL 3319/2025 · GC-APP-006 · PD-SP-R-0012^
ACCUMULATEDINSOLVENCY 36/2012 · INSOLVENCY-ADMINISTRATOR REMOVAL · CONSOLIDATED PROCEDURAL STATE
Removal application concerning Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte
Aweswell originated it; LPB also appeals; both challenges now converge in RPL 3304/2025. The end of the separate RPL 3319/2025 roll does not mean abandonment, a merits defeat or withdrawal by Aweswell: it follows from the accumulation of that appeal into the consolidated roll.
＋
Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.
Its own challenge to the refusal
↓ appeal
RPL 3304/2025 · GC-APP-005 · PD-SP-R-0011^
LIVE VEHICLELas Palmas Provincial Court — Fourth Section
ACCUMULATION OF BOTH APPEALS → RPL 3304/2025
The merits of the convergent challenges remain for determination in the consolidated proceeding according to the latest controlled documentary state.
Anti-error rule: never reduce the sequence to “Aweswell sought removal and lost.” Canonical wording: Aweswell originated the application → Aweswell appealed → LPB independently appealed → both appeals were accumulated into RPL 3304/2025 → appellate merits remain to be determined in the consolidated proceeding.
EXECUTIVE FINDING
Two appellants, one controversy
Aweswell Limited (PD-SP-O-0001^) initiated the removal application. Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (PD-SP-O-0002^), the insolvent company itself, also and independently challenged the refusal. LPB is not an informal supporter: it is an appellant in RPL 3304/2025. After accumulation, both challenges converge procedurally in that roll.
This page separates established procedural fact, party allegation, inference/reconstruction, appellate contention and unresolved responsibility. Criminal or intentional allegations are not presented as adjudicated facts.
ORIGINATING SOURCE · APPLICATION VISUALISATION
The 23 April 2025 application · 58 pages
Controlled metadata
Applicant: Aweswell Limited · PD-SP-O-0001^
Insolvency Administrator: Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte · PD-SP-P-0010^
Base proceeding: Insolvency 36/2012 · GC-JUD-001
Court: Commercial Court No.1 / Commercial Section position no.1 · PD-SP-I-0001^
Controlled public source: redacted specialist-corpus transcription R01.
Integrity / publication
Source SHA-256:
5665ec05ae42f18fc64b1209ed7984c39ece015933bdfc9dd8bcf1a8ece6bf26
The raw 58-page pleading is not republished because the publication-minimisation rules keep unnecessary personal/professional data and annex references off the public surface. Existing redacted text, hashes and controlled references are reused.
Open the controlled orders/filings corpus →
Open the detailed Administrator file preserving the specialist corpus →
How to read this visual: the 58 pages are not replaced by a generic sentence. The sections below preserve a substantive summary of each of the seven grounds, the relief sought, what the first-instance decisions did and did not decide, the two appeal routes, and links to the controlled dossiers carrying the fuller public detail and evidence.
RELIEF SOUGHT · NOT A JUDICIAL FINDING
What Aweswell actually requested
The application sought, among other relief, removal under article 100 TRLC, a replacement appointment under article 101 TRLC, rendition of accounts and specified institutional communications. These are remedies requested, not remedies already granted or facts adjudicated.
Article 100 TRLC
Removal of the Insolvency Administrator.
Article 101 TRLC
Consequent replacement/new appointment.
Rendition of accounts
Delivery and scrutiny of the accounting information claimed.
Public Insolvency Register
Registry notice in the terms pleaded.
AEAT
Communication of accounting/tax material where requested.
Public Prosecutor
Communication/referral for assessment in the terms advanced in the pleading.
Boundary: the controlled first-instance decisions resolved standing and did not comprehensively adjudicate the seven factual grounds one by one. “The application was rejected” cannot be converted into “the seven factual grounds were judicially found false.”
SEVEN PLEADED BLOCKS · DETAILED SUMMARY
What the application alleged and why each block was advanced as a removal ground
This is a detailed public-safe synthesis of material already controlled in the specialist Administrator file. Each block describes Aweswell's allegations, not findings made by a court.
Accounts / rendition of accounts
What was allegedThe application alleged prolonged failures to prepare and file annual accounts after LPB's powers had been suspended. Among the materials cited was a 20 March 2025 court-office record that did not locate an exemption order or the accounting documents at the point searched.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundAweswell framed this as an ongoing accountability and traceability issue affecting the estate's ability to know its accounting position, and coupled it with a request for rendition of accounts and related institutional communications.
Financial risk / swap
What was allegedThe application alleged inaction and later obstruction concerning the 2008 financial-risk-management contract. According to the pleading, that contract had caused more than €500,000 of loss and could support an estate claim or recovery route.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundThe point was not merely that a swap existed, but that the Insolvency Administration allegedly should have examined and, where appropriate, protected a potential estate claim. That remains an allegation requiring confrontation with the contract, decisions taken and contrary evidence.
Credit-assignment price / retract
What was allegedAweswell alleged obstruction or insufficient access to the true price and full terms of the credit assignment. The pleading linked that information to assessing remedies, litigation, negotiation and estate strategy, including analysis of retract where legally applicable.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundThe application argued that failure to obtain or disclose the full economics of the assignment could prevent informed decisions about the liability and alternatives to liquidation. This page does not state that a retract right existed or was exercisable; it preserves that the question was raised and required its own legal and factual analysis.
Dación en pago / fiscal valuation
What was allegedThe application challenged what it characterised as insufficiently critical acceptance or defence of a transfer/adjudication transaction, raising valuation, perimeter, authority and estate-protection questions.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundThe criticism was directed to the acts, recommendations and protective function attributed to the Insolvency Administrator. The alleged conduct of the Administrator remains separate from any later judicial decision: a court ruling on a transaction is not itself conduct by the Administrator and does not prove Aweswell's allegation.
Fragmentation of the hotel operating unit
What was allegedThe application alleged inaction in the face of fragmentation of the hotel as an economic unit and concerning access, operation and third-party assets or rights that were said to remain outside the insolvency estate.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundAweswell linked this to preserving value, economic continuity and estate perimeter, arguing that treatment of the hotel unit affected operating/exit alternatives and the protection of interests distinct from LPB's own estate.
Remuneration
What was allegedThe application raised issues about accrual and receipt of remuneration outside the liquidation time limits Aweswell said were applicable, as well as interest on remuneration.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundThe block was presented as an estate-cost, transparency and regularity issue. It is materially connected to the separate fees route but does not merge with it: RPL 421/2026 retains its own object and procedural state.
Opacity / conflicts
What was allegedAweswell alleged information asymmetries and insufficient disclosure or management of relationships and conflicts which, according to its pleading, could affect independence, transparency and confidence in the office.
Why it was advanced as a removal groundThe application used this as a cross-cutting point: not only individual acts, but whether relevant information, relationships and possible conflicts were disclosed and managed in a way that permitted scrutiny of the Administrator's independence.
Evidential rule: this summary makes the substance of the application visible, but does not turn it into a judgment. Any attribution of fact, knowledge, causation, conflict or responsibility must be tested against the source, opposition, decision, appeal, contrary evidence and later documents.
TWO ADVERSE DECISIONS · MERITS NOT RESOLVED BLOCK BY BLOCK
What the first-instance decisions actually decided
Order 1377/2025 · 12 September 2025
The court accepted the Administrator's standing objection: it treated the former Monterecco/Aweswell credit entered at €0 as an exclusion and considered that Aweswell had not challenged the provisional list. The application was rejected expressly without needing to enter the substantive grounds.
It decided: Aweswell's standing in that application.
It did not decide: a comprehensive merits adjudication of accounts, the swap, assignment price, dación, the hotel unit, remuneration or conflicts.
Decision of 11 November 2025
It confirmed the refusal, addressed reconsideration arguments from LPB and Aweswell and left open the non-suspensive appeal route. It added an ex officio assessment that remains relevant contrary material, but it likewise did not contain an act-by-act documentary adjudication of the seven pleaded blocks.
Methodological consequence: “dismissal/refusal” describes the first-instance procedural outcome; it does not by itself prove every alleged fact false. Conversely, the absence of a block-by-block merits decision does not prove the allegations true.
LPB ALSO APPEALS
The insolvent company is not “on the sidelines” of the removal issue
LPB filed its own challenge to the refusal. Its appeal is RPL 3304/2025. That means the insolvent company itself is challenging the first-instance decision. It does not automatically validate every Aweswell allegation, but it prevents the matter from being portrayed as an extinguished unilateral Aweswell initiative.
The Master Register distinguishes GC-APP-005 / PD-SP-R-0011^ for LPB and GC-APP-006 / PD-SP-R-0012^ for Aweswell. GC-APP-007 / PD-SP-R-0013 is a continuity family reference, not a third appeal.
APPELLATE CONVERGENCE
Why 3319 ceased to exist as a separate roll
23 Apr 2025 — Aweswell files the removal application.
12 Sep 2025 — Order 1377/2025 rejects it on standing without entering the substantive grounds.
11 Nov 2025 — the reconsideration decision confirms the refusal and the appeal route remains available.
RPL 3304/2025 — LPB's independent appeal.
RPL 3319/2025 — Aweswell's independent appeal.
15 Jul 2026 — Order 223/2026 accumulates 3319 into 3304 and orders subsequent procedural steps.
Decree 222/2026 · RPL 3319/2025 — records termination of the separate roll as the procedural consequence of accumulation.
Canonical state: RPL 3304/2025 remains the LIVE / CONSOLIDATED MASTER ROLL for the removal controversy; termination of 3319 as a separate roll is not a merits defeat for Aweswell.
Prohibited inference: “3319 ended, therefore Aweswell lost.” The termination document must be read with the accumulation order: 3319 ceased to proceed separately because it was procedurally absorbed into 3304.
SCRUTINY OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
The judicial organ is also part of the contested procedural history
This cannot be presented as a dispute isolated between Aweswell and the Insolvency Administrator. Judicial decisions, alleged omissions, timing and treatment of the removal application form part of the appealed procedural itinerary. They must be separated into: what the Administrator did or allegedly failed to do; what Aweswell requested; what LPB challenges; what the court decided; what reasoning or acts are challenged; and what remains for the Provincial Court.
Legal qualification: including judicial conduct does not presume criminal guilt or replace a judicial determination of responsibility. It prevents treating the court as an external observer when its decisions and procedural treatment form part of the documentary sequence under appeal.
First instance
Organ: PD-SP-I-0001^ · Commercial Court No.1 / position no.1.
Source-locked Magistrate-Judge on relevant acts: Alberto López Villarrubia · PD-SP-P-0057^.
Attribution is act-specific and does not transfer knowledge, intent or responsibility by office alone.
Appeal
Organ: Las Palmas Provincial Court — Fourth Section · PD-SP-I-0014^.
Effective panel, specific LAJ and any individual prosecutor remain at the source-verified level for each act. No name is completed by institutional inference.
Explicit gap: any LAJ/prosecutor not identified in the relevant signed copy remains in the identity queue.
EVIDENCE MATRIX
Proposition → source → proceeding → identity
| Proposition | Source / ID | Proceeding | Identities | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aweswell originated the 23-Apr-2025 application | R01 · 58-page application · controlled SHA-256 | GC-JUD-001 | PD-SP-O-0001^ · PD-SP-P-0010^ · PD-SP-I-0001^ | Controlled source; raw file withheld from public surface |
| Arts 100/101, accounts and communications were requested | R01 petitum | GC-JUD-001 | Aweswell / IA / RPC / AEAT / Public Prosecutor | Party requests, not grants |
| Seven factual blocks were pleaded | R01 body of application | GC-JUD-001 | Aweswell / IA | Party allegations; detailed public-safe summary visible on this page |
| First instance rejected on standing without comprehensively deciding the seven blocks | Order 1377/2025 + 11-Nov-2025 decision | GC-JUD-001 | PD-SP-P-0057^ · PD-SP-I-0001^ | Procedural fact; does not make allegations true or false |
| LPB independently appealed | AP record / RPL 3304/2025 | GC-APP-005 · PD-SP-R-0011^ | PD-SP-O-0002^ · PD-SP-I-0014^ | Independent appellant |
| Aweswell independently appealed | AP record / RPL 3319/2025 | GC-APP-006 · PD-SP-R-0012^ | PD-SP-O-0001^ · PD-SP-I-0014^ | Historical roll after accumulation |
| 3319 was accumulated into 3304 | Order 223/2026 · 15-Jul-2026 | GC-APP-005 ↔ GC-APP-006 | PD-SP-I-0014^ | Procedural accumulation fact |
| The separate 3319 roll ended because of accumulation | Decree 222/2026 · RPL 3319/2025 | GC-APP-006 → GC-APP-005 | AP Fourth Section | Not withdrawal or merits adjudication |
| RPL 3304/2025 is the live consolidated vehicle | Order 223/2026 + Decree 222/2026 + Master Register | GC-APP-005 | LPB + Aweswell + PD-SP-I-0014^ | Later merits outcome not located at controlled cut-off |
Event IDs: this page does not invent a new event ID where the canonical event register has not yet assigned one. Date, source and proceeding ID are preserved and the absent event ID remains an explicit promotion gap.
MANDATORY INTERCONNECTIONS · BIDIRECTIONAL NAVIGATION
The application, appeals and evidence are not an island
Removal core
Detailed Administrator file · removal + fees →Orders, decisions and filings corpus →Francisco de Borja / IA →Appeals
Trace RPL 3304/2025 / GC-APP-005 →Trace RPL 3319/2025 / GC-APP-006 →Master Register · 3304 →Master Register · 3319 →Provincial Court · Fourth Section →Related, non-merged routes
Fees · RPL 421/2026 →Culpability / classification →DP 1901/2026 →Material evidence
Minutes 2011–2022 →7 June 2018 →Case Prism / evidential dependencies →Identities and institutions
Canonical identity register ^ →First-instance judicial organ →Public authorities / Public Prosecutor reconstruction →Reading rule
Interconnection is not procedural merger. Each proceeding keeps its own parties, object, source and state. Links show factual dependency or documentary relevance only where a controlled bridge exists.
Reciprocity: the detailed Administrator file, the Insolvency Administrator dossier and the Fourth Section page contain the convergence notice linking back to this 3304/3319 dossier. Navigation therefore works in both directions and does not depend on a reader already knowing which roll became the consolidated vehicle.
LIVE GAPS
What remains to be closed
Still required or to be consolidated: the complete certified RPL 3304/2025 roll; the complete certified RPL 3319/2025 index and accumulation chain; any later merits decision if one exists; LPB's exact final appeal brief and receipt if not yet in the controlled corpus; complete indexing of every numbered annex cited by the 58-page application; and source-locked identification of any specific LAJ/prosecutor applicable to individual acts.
“Not located” does not mean “non-existent”; “alleged” does not mean “proved”; “accumulated” does not mean “dismissed on the merits”.