Owners’ initiative · documentary cutoff: 6 June 2018
The funded-exit work preceded the takeover.
The owners were pursuing several financing and acquisition routes, an ONA operating agreement and coordinated legal implementation before 7 June. These were successive and parallel efforts to pay the liabilities of Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. (LPB), recover corporate autonomy and preserve a viable operating hotel.
Reconstructed reader: prepared from recovered records in September 2026. It is not presented as an original page recovered from the suspended GitHub website. Later evidence remains on the complete parallel chronology.
Finance and implementation, read together
The right-hand column records what had to be protected or coordinated. It does not convert every implementation requirement into a failed financing condition.
| Date | Owners, operator and funding | Access, security and implementation |
|---|---|---|
| 18 January | Preliminary instrument Frux/Rinkelberg terms already describe an exit-financing structure. | Available-asset and share security precede the LPB mortgage after exit. The reviewed copy is nonbinding; borrower acceptance is blank. |
| 22–23 January | Contemporaneous party report Patricia reports two signed offers and parallel work with two funding groups after months of preparation. | She identifies investors’ concern about paying without securing the court-supervised exit. Her report does not establish the execution status of every recovered copy. |
| 5 February | Contemporaneous professional report Advanced financing and a proposed investor inspection are reported. | Counsel reports restrictions on the owners’ access while an investor visit was being arranged. Patricia disputes the account of operations and distinguishes LPB’s assets from the whole hotel. |
| April | Operating work and negotiations ONA’s operating plan develops alongside an additional Avenue Capital approach. | Operator projections, refurbishment needs, licences and legal due diligence remain transaction inputs, not proof that the hotel lacked commercial appeal. |
| May | Distinct transaction routes Elaia acquisition drafts and Stoneweg financing discussions show alternatives progressing alongside ONA’s work. | Acquisition and lending are different mechanisms. Drafts and negotiations must retain their own status; their existence is not a completed disbursement. |
| 5–6 June | Professional correspondence / signed operating instrument Carlos Sanz reports several fund term sheets. Daniel defines his coordination role. The Clubotel hotel-industry lease is signed on 6 June. | The work joins shareholder, debtor, operator, financiers and advisers. It already exists before the material-control change on 7 June. |
Source trail: January preliminary terms · two-offer report · February access account · 5 June multiple-term-sheet report. These links open the public source-status ledger; private correspondence is not reproduced here.
Security could be delivered in stages
The January instrument directly records the sequencing. The absence of an already-completed post-exit mortgage does not, by itself, show an absence of financing or interim collateral.
Protect the advance
Arrange the applicable share pledges, receivable or available-asset security and controlled payment process.Coordinate payment and exit
Establish the payable liabilities and the court/administrator steps for satisfaction and conclusion.Complete later security
Deliver the agreed LPB property security once the exit makes it available.
This is the documented transaction design. Gil’s position is that it could be performed. Each route’s actual approvals, delivery and outcome remain separately traceable. Read the complete security sequence.
LPB’s concurso was not the whole hotel
LPB was the insolvent property-owning company within a mixed-ownership complex. Other owners’ assets, Community governance and hotel-wide exploitation were distinct layers. Calling the whole hotel or its entire operation “in insolvency” collapses those distinctions. See the ownership and operating perimeter.
The record supports sustained commercial interest and specific concerns about access, protection and legal certainty. It does not establish that every financier withdrew for the same reason. Subsequent events must be tested against this existing work, not used to erase it.