1 · Direct judicial
Filed submissions, hearings, rulings reproducing allegations, reports and communications formally incorporated into the case.
KNOWLEDGE → SUPERVISORY POWER → RESPONSE → CONSEQUENCE → IRREVERSIBILITY
Magistrate-Judge Alberto López Villarrubia of the then Commercial Court No. 1 of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: a supervision matrix, not a list of adverse rulings.
The name is used to attribute signed judicial acts and supervision opportunities within Insolvency 36/2012. This page does not establish judicial prevaricación, corruption, coordination with third parties or automatic knowledge of external facts. It asks what was in the record, what the Administrator knew, what could be required, what response exists, and what happened next.
Three levels of knowledge
2 · Administrator / reporting duty
Facts known or verifiable by the Insolvency Administration are not automatically attributed to the judge. The record should identify when they were reported or when the risk later reached the court directly.
3 · External/later
RICPE, CNMV, funds, tax and later operation may show continuity or consequence, but not historic judicial knowledge without proven incorporation.
Responsibility rule
An omission by itself does not establish a criminal offence. Its potential relevance lies in how earlier knowledge may contextualise specific later rulings and their consequences.
ONA COUNTERFACTUAL · APRIL 2018 → 2019
The funded alternative allows knowledge, available options and loss of opportunity to be tested.
The unitary ONA/Clubotel record joins facts that should not be fragmented: Carlos Sanz sought information from the Insolvency Administrator in April; ONA/Clubotel had operating documentation and a signed industrial lease by 6 June; material control changed on 7 June; financing routes continued; and Daniel Irigoyen reported in September that he had told the judge funding was approved to exit through payment or deposit for all creditors. Clubotel later sought formal standing in 2019.
Gil Marer's attributed criminal hypothesis: if the certified court record confirms sufficient judicial knowledge of a developed alternative capable of paying recognised liabilities, the question is not merely why rulings were adverse. It is which asset-protection, quantification, access, competition and supervisory measures were legally available; which were requested; what was decided or omitted and why; and whether a specific sequence knowingly allowed the asset and opportunity to become irreversible in favour of the adverse perimeter. That does not establish judicial prevaricación: the applicable offence would require a specific ruling or duty, the legally required level of objective injustice/arbitrariness, knowledge/intent and causation; error, disagreement or judicial discretion are insufficient.
Unitary ONA record → · Documented fact matrix → · Seven-actor criminal test →
Seven verifiable nuclei
1 · Funded exit / April 2018–2019
The corpus identifies ONA/Clubotel operator documents, funding, due diligence, valuation, Carlos Sanz's access request, professional communications and later personation. The question is what was formally received, required, protected and resolved after 7 June, and why the alternative did not reach a useful judicial decision.
2 · Debt / threshold / final amount
Distinguish final texts, interest, improvement figure and debt treated as extinguished/absorbed. Locate the act producing each transition and its effect on the ability to pay.
3 · 28/11/2018 operation / 2019 non-validation
What made the ruling effective: ownership, Registry, possession, €400,000, inventory, accounting, restitution or new title.
4 · Insolvency estate / physical condition
After allegations concerning access, works, alteration and requests for expert/judicial inspection, what neutral equivalent allowed the court to know the actual condition before liquidation continued?
5 · Administrator supervision
What Borja Rodríguez-Batllori reported on material control, conservation, debt, ONA/Clubotel, tender and accounts; what requirements or alternative controls the Court used.
6 · Material competition 2021
ONA/third-party bidder: publicity, time, access, data room, deposit, solvency, perimeter, comparability of consideration and procedural treatment.
7 · Adjudication / implementation / accounts
2021–22 should be read as one chain: substantive decision, clarification/complement, testimony, deed, charges, Registry, post-deed communication and final accounting.
Judicial Knowledge & Supervision Ledger
| Milestone | Knowledge to establish | Response/control to identify | Why it matters later |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26–27/04/2018 | Transaction interest communicated to the Administrator and redirection to personation/court. | If it reached the court, what information/competitive process was considered and how the possibility of an offer was preserved. | Early evidence of an external route before 7 June. |
| 13–26/06/2018 | Funded alternative, material-control context, appeal and need for protection/quantification according to sources requiring authentication. | Filings, transfers, suspension, Administrator instructions and follow-up. | November operation and preservation of external competition. |
| 04/07–26/09/2018 | Professional conservation/reporting proposals and funding for payment/deposit; approximate €13.1m figure disputed in contemporaneous notes. | What formally reached the court, what was decided/deferred and on what basis. | Threshold, negotiation, quantification and exit viability. |
| 2019 | Clubotel personation, Administrator opposition, continued novation/security/conclusion work and non-validation of the 2018 operation. | Standing, information access, restitution, rectification, reserve, accounting or new title. | Whether the funded alternative retained an effective procedural route. |
| 12/05/2020–24/02/2021 | Allegations about estate, access, condition, works, debt and need for verification. | What neutral measure replaced expert/judicial inspection if refused. | The tender required an asset capable of being valued and delivered. |
| May 2021 | Third-party offers/interest and open perimeter/amount questions. | Rules, material equality, access, reasons and technical timing of decision. | Adjudication and competitive closure. |
| 2022 | Beneficiary, assets, amount, finality and enabling title. | Judicial/LAJ/deed/Registry and charge-cancellation chain. | External consolidation difficult to reverse. |
| 2025 | Administrator-removal applications against the accumulated history. | What facts were checked and what alternative supervision remained when he continued. | Current knowledge and continuity of control. |
The insolvency perimeter is itself a supervision test
LPB was the debtor declared in Insolvency 36/2012; that declaration did not make the whole Sun Park complex insolvent or place it in the estate. The proceeding arose from LPB’s voluntary filing under asserted cash-flow and imminent-enforcement pressure. It concerned LPB’s estate and did not by itself determine the solvency, ownership or operating status of CEXP, Matkator, Aweswell, other owners or the hotel as a whole. The Court had to protect and liquidate LPB property without creating title by spillover over independent rights. The institutional question is twofold: whether what was inside the estate was sufficiently protected and whether insolvency-originated acts produced material effects outside it without equivalent title. Canonical LPB Insolvency* perimeter note →
Institutional defence preserved
The judge could lawfully disagree with LPB/Aweswell, rely on the Administrator, consider a measure unnecessary, be constrained by an appeal, or conclude that a third party failed objective requirements. A reconciling ruling or record may exist outside the corpus. The decisive source is the certified case file, not the absence of a document from Por Derecho's archive.
Strict separation of routes
DP 1956/2026 is not the forum in which Por Derecho seeks to determine any eventual responsibility of the Mercantile judge. That route concerns the Insolvency Administrator's own acts, omissions, premises, implementation and accounting. The potential criminal significance of specified judicial rulings and conduct was raised through a separate complaint presented on 18 June 2026 and its later amplification, registered or linked by the Decanato under daily reference no. 24; that reference is not a NIG, Diligencias Previas number or formal case number.
Separately, DI 169/2026 and CGPJ Appeal 286/2026 form the institutional/supervisory route. The Permanent Commission/Inspection may consider court functioning and institutional handling; jurisdictional appeals review rulings; LAJ/court-office acts have their own perimeter; the Public Prosecution/TSJ route alone can assess criminal relevance. No route proves another route's hypothesis merely by existing.
Deep insolvency-estate supervision file → · CGPJ reader room → · DP 1956/2026 →