PH122 HOLDER · HAYA SERVICER/INTERLOCUTOR · CERBERUS CONTEXT · CAJA INSULAR/BFA/BANKIA UPSTREAM
LPB's restructuring proposals reached Haya, were examined against criteria attributed to the holder and Haya communicated a rejection by “the creditor.” Haya also identified interlocutors described as Cerberus and Bankia. This supports receipt, evaluation and communication; it does not yet establish who decided or Cerberus capacity, ownership or control.
The issue is no longer whether the workout reached the creditor perimeter. It did. The unresolved issue is who decided, under what mandate and committee authority, on what information, for what reason, and with what foreseeable effect on LPB's ability to refinance, exit insolvency or preserve estate value.
Haya stated that the proposal had been analysed during a weekly conference. A one-year standstill did not fit the debt holder's criteria; the remaining options required more detail on amounts, timetables and proposed investors.
What this proves: actual evaluation against creditor criteria. What it leaves open: participants, principal, committee authority, documents considered and reasons.
Cuatrecasas had presented a proposal as destined for Haya or Cerberus. Haya first requested a signed borrower version and supplied its delivery address; the next day it stated that the terms had been rejected by “the creditor” and that execution was no longer needed.
What this proves: a rejection decision existed and travelled through Haya. What it leaves open: the identity and authority of the decision-maker, the reasoning and whether alternatives were compared.
LPB sent Haya the Bankia current-account/SWAP items, PH122's two mortgages, prior Bankia and PH122/Cerberus offers, the convenio and viability plan, and the stated UK proposal of €5 million immediate payment plus terms for the balance. Haya identified the Cerberus interlocutors and separately undertook to provide the Bankia contact.
What this proves: direct knowledge of the credit and workout architecture and operational routing of both lanes. What it does not prove: common legal personality or automatic cross-liability.
| Actor / lane | Capacity to prove | Strongest present proposition | Missing allocation record |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caja Insular / BFA / Bankia | Caja Insular / La Caja de Canarias: contractual originator; BFA: intermediate successor to document; Bankia: documented administration and enforcement | Origination/product conduct must be allocated to Caja Insular; later account, default, acceleration and enforcement conduct to the actor that performed it. Succession does not itself prove direct origination conduct by BFA or Bankia. | Native files and Caja Insular→BFA→Bankia→SAREB deeds/schedules. |
| SAREB | transferee | Transferred the actual credit and included accessories—not a newly invented asset. | Complete instrument, schedule, balance, warranties and payment. |
| PH122 | documented holder | Held the mortgage credits during the 2015–2017 workout window. The economics, decision-makers and concrete benefit of each decision require the transaction and governance record. | LSAP, ownership/governance records, committee, economics and instructions. |
| Haya | documented servicer/interlocutor | Received the workout, communicated criteria and rejection, and identified interlocutors described as Cerberus and Bankia. It is not asserted to have been holder or decision-maker. | Servicing agreement, powers, delegation, employer and reporting line. |
| Cerberus | mentioned context; capacity not established | Was identified in communications as creditor-side context. That does not prove ownership of PH122, mandate, control, instruction, decision, ratification or benefit. | Fund/ownership chart, committee authority, instructions, ratification and benefit. |
| CAM | assignee from 20 October 2017 | Acquired the creditor position after the documented workout history and then pursued its own debt/valuation/dación route. | Complete transaction file, due diligence, disclosures and warranties. |
Original mortgage/refinancing terms, SWAP or hedging product, pledged funds, disclosures and linked obligations.
Payments, settlements, charges, account application, default, acceleration, enforcement and instructions.
What moved to SAREB and PH122, what remained personal to the originator/successor, and how the Valencia proceeding affects the lane.
A later assignee does not automatically inherit every personal Bankia liability. But the assigned credit remains dependent on its true originating amount, payments, defences and security.
SAREB→PH122 LSAP/policy; complete asset schedule; allocated price; payment; adjustments; warranties.
Haya servicing agreement; powers; delegations; reporting line; committee charter; employer identity.
Weekly-conference packs and minutes; rejection record; participants; questions; counterproposals; reasons; comparison of alternatives.
PH122→CAM data room, due diligence, disclosures, warranties, communications and any side arrangements.
By April 2015 Haya said the LPB workout was being analysed in a weekly forum. In May 2016 Haya communicated rejection by “the creditor.” In May 2017 it identified interlocutors described as Cerberus and separately undertook to provide the Bankia contact.
Por Derecho retains the burden of substantiating its assertions and, in criminal proceedings, the prosecution must prove guilt. The mandate and decision-file request is a finite production request to identify who exercised power over the credit, why proposed exits were rejected and whether legally attributable harm resulted. Non-production does not reverse the burden, is not an admission and does not require anyone to prove innocence.
Status: primary correspondence supports receipt, communicated evaluation and routing. It does not itself prove Haya decision capacity, Cerberus ownership/control, unlawful purpose, group-wide liability or a criminal agreement. Corrective and exculpatory primary records are invited.