Primary law before commentary
Judgments, court orders and official records are prioritised. Press and professional analysis are identified as such and never silently upgraded into findings.
Legal Notebook · Canary Islands · restructuring / insolvency / hotel assets
Where control, value and legal process meet.
A public, bilingual research desk for lawyers, judges, journalists, academics and special-situations professionals. Each note separates the decision, each side’s account, what remains unverified and the questions that deserve primary documents.
Editorial proposition
Not a list of accusations. A testable legal record.
The notebook begins where a headline normally ends: with the order, the valuation date and scope, the route by which debt became control, the treatment of funded alternatives, the distinction between estate and non-estate rights, and the procedural status of every challenge.
Each side remains visible
Creditor, shareholder, debtor, administrator and court positions are separated. Provisional admission of a complaint is not guilt; rejection of one argument does not answer every valuation question.
Corrections can close the gap
Every note ends with specific missing records or procedural outcomes. A sourced correction is incorporated with a visible date and scope.
Disclosure: Project Sun Rock is directly interested in the integrity of insolvency, valuation and hotel-control processes in Las Palmas. The cases below are legally and factually separate from Sun Park. They are comparators and reporting leads; they do not prove misconduct, bias, collusion or a stable institutional pattern in the Sun Park matter.
Open case files
Three entry points for control, value and protection—without conflating the matters.
The two comparators concern hotel assets, contested changes of control and valuation disputes. The third applies a criminal-law evidence test to Sun Park and states expressly what analogy cannot prove.
Judicial control and possible prevaricación: what separates procedural defeat from a criminal case
A public matrix of knowledge, jurisdiction, remedy, decision or omission and effect. It uses Inparsa as a methodological comparator, never as proof of Gil Marer’s allegation concerning Sun Park.
Inparsa / Hoteles Beatriz: creditor-led restructuring opposed by shareholders
Judgment 61/2025 approved a plan supported by 89.9% of affected financial debt, capitalised part of the debt and gave the plan sponsors approximately 71% of the equity. Inparsa disputes insolvency, valuation and process; Blantyre/Meru disputes that account. Later reporting described a CGPJ complaint and provisional TSJC screening of a prevaricación complaint—neither is a merits finding.
Santana Cazorla / Anfi / Lopesan: the price, competition and estate-value question
A February 2025 process led to Lopesan acquiring the remaining 50% of Anfi for €8 million after no superior offer was reported. Santana family members later challenged the order and alleged a profound undervaluation. A later Mar Abierto/Taurito auction is informative but legally separate.
New analysis series
Three articles for the current legal conversation.
The series turns the source files into publishable questions about the criminal threshold, judicial traceability and valuation. Each article offers a limited, refutable connection—not accusation by association.
When can an insolvency dispute become a criminal question?
The approval decision, competing economic accounts, reported provisional screening and the test separating an adverse ruling from a criminally unjust decision.
Two judicial names. One proceeding. An explanation still missing.
Two insolvency notices attribute successive acts to Alberto López Villarrubia and Guillermo Fernández García. We publish the observation, its limits and four records that can explain it.
What is valued when commercial proceedings change control of a hotel?
Anfi, Taurito, Inparsa and Sun Park show why assets, enterprise, equity, debt, security and price cannot be collapsed into a single figure.
Shared reporting agenda
The questions that connect these notes—without conflating them.
Which value, at what date and for what purpose?
Enterprise value, secured-asset value, equity value and liquidation value are not interchangeable. Comparables and assumptions must travel with the number.
Was the market genuinely tested?
Time, deposits, minimum uplifts, access to data and treatment of funded exit offers determine whether formal competition could produce maximum value.
What legal bridge moved value or authority?
Debt enforcement, debt-to-equity conversion, asset sale and operational possession are different routes. Each needs a traceable legal and accounting bridge.
What belonged to the estate?
A process concerning one debtor cannot silently absorb third-party property, contractual rights or operating authority outside the estate.
What remedy was available—and used?
The test is knowledge, competence, available remedy, decision or omission, implementation and effect, not merely whether a party lost.
Which challenge is actually pending?
A complaint, provisional screening, reconsideration request, appeal and final judgment have radically different legal significance.
Legal writers: test it, correct it, extend it.
The contribution thread accepts primary records, precise corrections, professional analysis and focused story proposals. GitHub sign-in is required; contributions are public and moderated.
Do not upload confidential records or personal data. Identify the source, date, procedural status and exact proposition it supports.