Community meeting
Carlos, Miguel and Elena appear in the private-owner / Community workstream. PwC billing records strategy and attendance.
PD-SP-P-0036 · CARET_CONFIRMED · CANONICAL VISUAL ASSET
Carlos Saavedra Rodríguez del Palacio^
The exact named LinkedIn profile identifies him as a PwC national partner in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The official PwC Spain profile confirms his full name, partner status and leadership of the Canary Islands legal practice.
^ and image boundary. The portrait and profiles reconcile identity and professional context. They do not prove conduct, a dated mandate, receipt, knowledge transfer, conflict, information use, causation, benefit, liability or wrongdoing. The image does not replace the source for any proposition.
PWC · CARLOS SAAVEDRA · PRIOR CLIENT → PENAL-ROUTE NOTICE → LATER ACOSTA/RICPE CONVERGENCE → CONFLICT RECONCILIATION
PwC knew Sun Park before the Acosta Matos / RIC Private Equity project existed.
Updated 12 September 2026: relationships, current disclosures and Portfolio remedies
Aweswell Limited is the UK holding company and foreign investor at the head of the relevant Spanish investment structure. The surviving record documents formal PwC Legal UK representation and intensive Landwell/PwC Canary Islands work concerning Sun Park, LPB, Matkator, Community governance, private units, alleged debt, insolvency, access and strategy.
THE CONFLICT / CONGRUENCE QUESTION
2016: detailed prior-client knowledge + an express instruction to stop the civil-only route and pursue a criminal route → later: documented PwC/Carlos professional convergence with RICPE / Grupo Acosta Matos and related hotel interests.
The central question is not whether later proximity looks uncomfortable. It is what conflict, former-client, confidentiality, independence and information-governance basis allowed any later engagement with an overlapping beneficiary/counterparty perimeter after PwC had acquired this prior client's strategic and potentially adverse information.
Precision control: the surviving July 2016 correspondence does not presently show a separate Carlos-authored acknowledgement. It shows Carlos copied on the 16 June instruction and on the 19–20 July exchange. Miguel Hernández/PwC replied: “Tomamos nota de vuestra decisión.” The safe proposition is therefore PwC-team notice, with Carlos copied, unless a further Carlos-authored source is located.
Evidence-led · maximum scrutiny · no finding of wrongdoing
Editorial boundary. This page does not state that Carlos Saavedra or PwC “switched allegiance” as a proven breach, misused confidential information, committed a deontological violation or assisted wrongdoing. It documents the chronology and asks what safeguards, conflict review and mandate boundaries existed.
1 · What Carlos/PwC knew and did in 2016
The record is not retrospective attribution of knowledge.
89.7 hPwC billing appendix records named Apr–May 2016 legal/advisory work.
26 AprCarlos recorded six hours for the Sun Park Community meeting and strategy preparation.
10 JunTwo located AMR recordings measure ≈126m36s. A later derivative transcript states 144 min; the discrepancy remains open.
Jul 2016PwC was finalising a challenge to the 26 April resolutions while the client redirected the strategy toward the penal route.
CARLOS / PWC — CONTEMPORANEOUS WORK RECORD
PwC's own appendix records Carlos coordinating the team, defining strategy, preparing for and attending the 26 April Sun Park meeting, planning strategy with Juan Tomás Parrilla and coordinating with Cuatrecasas.
LITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION · 12–16 MAY 2016
The primary chain arranges notarial appointments for general litigation powers from LPB and Simon Peter Thompson in favour of listed court agents and PwC lawyers Carlos Saavedra, Miguel Hernández and Elena Santos. This proves a concrete Community-challenge implementation track beyond meeting attendance. Without the executed instruments, the page does not claim either power was signed, accepted, used or remained in force.
REPORT + PWC TEAM · 6–10 JUN 2016
Jonathan Simó sent a report and supporting ledgers; Miguel/PwC replied “Nos parece bien. Tiremos con esta versión”. Carlos, Elena and Alejandro Perera were copied, and PwC coordinated the 10 June meeting. A same-night message said Jonathan’s report was the one taken to that meeting. This proves transmission, review, expressed approval and coordination; it does not prove reading by every copied recipient, Alejandro’s attendance, the contents of the unrecovered native v4 body, or delivery to the Administrador Concursal.
CLIENT NOTICE TO PWC · 16 JUN / 19 JUL 2016
The surviving correspondence says the client did not want further meetings with the Molina family and wanted “una querella personal”; on 19 July Patricia reiterated that “lo único que queríamos es la vía penal contra esta gente”. Carlos was copied.
PWC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT · 20 JUL 2016
Miguel Hernández/PwC replied, with Carlos copied: “Tomamos nota de vuestra decisión”, while explaining the limitation period for the civil Community challenge. This proves institutional receipt/acknowledgement by the PwC team; it should not be misquoted as a separate statement authored by Carlos.
2 · A single 2016 sequence
The instructions, legal response and insolvency contact must be read together.
Challenges + litigation powers
PwC develops general litigation powers for LPB and Simon Thompson naming Carlos, Miguel and Elena among the lawyers. The record proves preparation, not execution.
Report + meeting + change of route
Jonathan sends the report and ledgers; Miguel/PwC approves proceeding with the version, with Carlos, Elena and Alejandro copied. PwC coordinates the 10 June professional meeting, which addresses the economic/legal architecture. On 16 June the client directs PwC to put the then document aside and pursue a personal criminal complaint rather than further meetings. The inherited “11-Jun” route is retained only as a version-history alias.
Penal route expressly reiterated
PwC says it is finalising the 26 April challenge. Patricia replies that the desired route is penal. Miguel/PwC answers that the decision is noted. Carlos is copied throughout the material exchange.
Direct AC contact
Surviving correspondence records PwC having spoken directly with the Administrador Concursal about the proposed operator/new exploitation-contract route; Patricia then asks for a written account of what was said and answered.
Protective-shield question: once PwC knew the client was characterising the conduct as potentially criminal and asking for the penal route, what risks did PwC identify, escalate, refer, preserve or decline—and where is the professional record of that decision?
3 · Later RICPE / Acosta Matos convergence
The later relationship is documented in layers. The exact Sun Park mandate remains a key missing bridge.
| Period | Documented congruence | What it proves / does not prove |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L. appears in RICPE's audit history for FY2019. | Formal PwC-network relationship with RICPE; not proof that Carlos/Landwell worked on Sun Park. |
| 4 Jun 2020 | RICPE investor material carrying the Sun Park / Acosta Matos project identifies PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L. as RICPE's auditor. | PwC and the Sun Park project coexist in the same investor ecosystem; not proof PwC validated the Sun Park title narrative. |
| 2020 | Public event records place PwC Canary Islands legal/tax leadership in the RICPE professional ecosystem alongside Acosta/RICPE participants. | Professional proximity; the exact mandate must still be proved. |
| Mar–Apr 2021 | PwC Network escalates the Sun Park complaint to PwC Spain Legal/General Counsel channels. | Hard institutional notice that the complaint connected PwC Canarias, Sun Park and RICPE. |
| 2022 | Public event material identifies Carlos Saavedra in a PwC / RICPE / MYND professional environment. | Carlos personally appears in the later ecosystem; still not proof of a same-asset engagement. |
| Later / 2026 | Public material records PwC collaboration with Grupo Acosta Matos on another hotel project; a 2026 BORME record places Carlos as non-director secretary of Socios Inversores Canarios, S.L., whose board includes Grupo Acosta Matos represented by José Daniel Acosta Matos. | Later Carlos/PwC–Acosta professional convergence is documented. It does not, without more, prove disloyalty, misuse of information, reward or quid pro quo. |
4 · Why the sequence creates a concrete conflict problem
Earlier adverse information and later professional opportunity cannot be analysed in separate boxes.
FORMER-CLIENT / CONFIDENTIALITY
What information remained protected?
PwC had access to strategy, Community positions, private-owner issues, title/deed questions, insolvency context, alleged debt, access and governance. Which of that information remained confidential and relevant when later Acosta/RICPE-related matters were considered?
CONFLICT ACCEPTANCE
On what basis was later work accepted?
What conflict search, connected-party mapping, informed consent or waiver, PwC Legal/Risk review, independence analysis or recusal was completed before any later overlapping engagement?
INFORMATION BARRIERS
Were the earlier files isolated?
Which PwC systems retained the 2016 files; who could access them; what matter-opening searches surfaced them; and what information barriers or access controls were created?
CROSS-ASSET CONGRUENCE
Is this one isolated overlap or a recurring professional relationship?
Where Carlos/PwC later worked with the Acosta Matos/private-equity perimeter on other hotel assets, the repository should map each engagement by date, PwC legal entity, client, asset, role and fee/appointment status. Repetition may strengthen the relevance of the conflict inquiry, but it is not itself proof of a breach.
The question PwC should be able to answer directly: after the 2016 Sun Park team had received the client's express penal-route instruction and accumulated detailed strategic information, on what documented conflict-management basis was later professional work with the overlapping Acosta Matos / RICPE private-equity perimeter accepted, and what safeguards protected the former client's information and interests?
5 · Congruence matrix to be maintained in the repository
Every later overlap should be tested, not merely described.
| Dimension | Required repository test |
|---|---|
| Person / PwC entity | Carlos personally, Landwell/PwC Tax & Legal, PwC Auditores or another member firm? Do not collapse distinct legal entities. |
| Earlier information | What Sun Park/Aweswell/LPB/Matkator information was actually received, created or accessible in 2016? |
| Later client/perimeter | RICPE, CAM/Grupo Acosta Matos, HNT, MYND, Canarian Hospitality or another connected party? |
| Asset overlap | Sun Park itself, another Acosta hotel asset, or a wider investment vehicle? |
| Role / mandate | Audit, legal, tax, transaction, finance, governance, company-secretarial, public-funds or other advisory role? |
| Conflict controls | Conflict search, Legal/Risk clearance, independence review, informed consent/waiver, information barrier, recusal and DMS access controls? |
| Evidence status | Verified primary record, public record, institutional statement, inference, open question or evidence gap. |
Publication rule: do not use “switched allegiance” as an established fact unless a later adverse mandate and the legally relevant conflict are proved. The public formulation is later professional convergence creating a documented former-client/conflict question.
6 · Six finite questions for PwC Legal, Risk and leadership
1 · 2016 notice and response
What did PwC understand from the 16 June and 19 July instructions to move to a criminal route, and what advice, referral, escalation or closure decision followed?
2 · Subsequent mandates
Did Carlos or any PwC entity later accept work for RICPE, Grupo/Construcciones Acosta Matos, HNT, MYND, Canarian Hospitality or connected interests, on Sun Park or other assets?
3 · Conflict review
For each such mandate, what former-client, connected-party, confidentiality, independence and conflict analysis was performed?
4 · Consent and barriers
Was any informed consent/waiver sought, and what information barriers, recusal or access restrictions were implemented?
5 · Same people / systems
Which professionals or systems connected the 2016 files to later matters, and did conflict/KYC searches surface Aweswell, LPB, Matkator, Sun Park or the relevant individuals?
6 · Other assets
What later professional work did Carlos/PwC undertake with the same Acosta Matos/private-equity perimeter on other hotel or investment assets, and how was the cumulative conflict analysis documented?
7 · CNMV and public-funds control
Do not manufacture unsupported bridges.
CNMV: the available supervisory record does not establish that CNMV contacted PwC or any auditor, that PwC responded to CNMV, or that CNMV relied on PwC to clear Sun Park. Those remain verification questions.
Public support: if any PwC entity performed audit, legal, tax, financial, due-diligence, assurance or certification work concerning Sun Park/MYND Yaiza in RIC, regional-incentive, FEDER or other public-funding processes, identify the exact entity, mandate, dates and outputs. No such role is asserted here without source support.
8 · OPEN QUESTION TO THE ADMINISTRACIÓN CONCURSAL, FISCALÍA AND THE CONCURSO COURT
Why was Carlos Saavedra's evidence not heard at the vista de calificación?
MISSING-WITNESS / EVIDENTIAL-COMPLETENESS QUESTION
Carlos Saavedra was a documented custodian of contemporaneous evidence potentially relevant to allegations of criminal conduct, third-party responsibility, the Administrador Concursal's own knowledge and alternative causation within the concurso. The surviving 2016 record places PwC inside the legal response, records direct notice of allegations regarded by the client as potentially criminal, an express request for the penal route, and PwC contact with the Administrador Concursal.
The finite question: if Carlos was proposed, admitted, summoned, expected or otherwise positioned to give evidence in the calificación proceedings but his testimony was ultimately not heard, who requested, agreed to, acquiesced in or otherwise caused that procedural outcome, on what basis, and where is the documentary record explaining it?
TO THE ADMINISTRACIÓN CONCURSAL
What did the AC know and how was Carlos's evidence assessed?
When preparing or maintaining the calificación case, did the AC know that Carlos/PwC held this contemporaneous body of evidence? What assessment was made of its relevance to disputed Community debt, governance, access/control, third-party conduct, alternative causation and the AC's own prior knowledge?
TO FISCALÍA
Was the complete 2016 PwC chain before the prosecutor?
Before Carlos's testimony was not heard, was Fiscalía informed of the June–September 2016 evidence chain: direct notice to PwC, the express penal-route instruction and the confirmed PwC–AC contact? If not, why not; if yes, what assessment was made of its relevance?
TO THE CONCURSO COURT
What procedural decision caused the testimony not to be practised?
What judicial or procedural act resulted in Carlos not testifying? Who requested or supported that outcome, and what reasons were recorded for treating the evidence as unnecessary, inadmissible, withdrawn, waived, duplicative or otherwise dispensable?
TO ALL THREE INSTITUTIONS
What was the effect on the completeness of the calificación?
What consideration was given to whether Carlos could provide material evidence concerning conduct by actors other than the debtor's directors, the Administrador Concursal's own knowledge, the origin and treatment of disputed Community debt, and alternative explanations for deterioration, loss or displacement of the estate?
Precision control: this page does not state that the judge, Fiscalía or Administración Concursal deliberately suppressed Carlos's evidence, nor that his later PwC/Acosta/RICPE convergence explains why he did not testify. Those propositions require actor-specific proof of the procedural decision and motive. The public demand is for the record: who caused the non-practice, why, what was known at the time, and what evidence was thereby lost?
Further open question: did the court, Fiscalía or AC know of or later consider Carlos/PwC's documented professional convergence with the RICPE / Acosta Matos perimeter, and if so what relevance—if any—was attributed to it when evaluating his evidential position, independence, credibility or the completeness of the calificación record?
9 · Preservation
The conflict and missing-witness questions are capable of documentary resolution.
Por Derecho asks PwC to preserve engagement letters, KYC/client-acceptance records, conflict and independence searches, matter opening/closure records, DMS/workspace access logs, correspondence, calendars, time records, advice/drafts, 2016 criminal-route/referral material, AC-facing material, 2021 Legal/Risk escalation records, information-barrier decisions and later CAM/RICPE/HNT/MYND/Acosta work product across relevant PwC entities. The procedural record should likewise preserve the witness proposal, admission or inadmission order, summons, any withdrawal/renunciation/substitution, vista recording and minutes, party submissions, Fiscalía position, AC position and the exact act by which Carlos's testimony was not heard.
Preservation is requested because these records can resolve finite questions; it is not evidence of wrongdoing.
10 · ^ register · people, entities, events and evidence
The finite first-hop census is complete; total identity reconciliation is not.
PARTIAL — NOT ALL IS^
What ^ means: it confirms a reconciled identity only. It does not prove conduct, dated capacity, mandate, knowledge, conflict, information use, causation, benefit, liability or wrongdoing. Events and evidence are registered and interlinked but do not receive ^.
32/35identities confirmed
3identities pending
20events registered
19evidence records
Reconciled people
- Gil Marer^
- Patricia Domínguez^
- Francisco Mario Matos Matas^
- Francisco de Borja Rodríguez-Batllori Laffitte^
- José Daniel Acosta Matos^
- Francisco Luis Molina Molina^
- Carlos Saavedra Rodríguez del Palacio^
- Miguel Hernández Lorenzo^
- Elena Santos Ramos^
- Alejandro Perera González^
- Jonathan Simó Morales^
- Simon Peter Thompson^
- Juan Tomás Parrilla Suárez^
Confirmed entities, structures, institutions and proceeding
- Aweswell Limited^
- Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U.^
- Matkator, S.L.U.^
- Comunidad de Propietarios Sun Park^
- Comunidad de Explotación Sun Park^
- Construcciones Acosta Matos, S.A.^
- Hotel New Trend, S.L.^
- Canarian Hospitality, S.L.^
- RIC Private Equity Investment Partners SCR, S.A.^
- MYND Yaiza^
- Cuatrecasas, Gonçalves Pereira, S.L.P.^
- Landwell-PricewaterhouseCoopers Tax & Legal Services, S.L.^
- PricewaterhouseCoopers Auditores, S.L.^
- Grupo Acosta Matos, S.L.^
- Socios Inversores Canarios, S.L.^
- Commercial Court No. 1^
- Ministerio Fiscal / Fiscalía^
- Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores^
- Insolvency 36/2012 — LPB^
Pending — no ^: The controlled PwC Canary Islands perimeter; the PwC UK Legal/Risk channel; and the PwC Spain Legal/General Counsel channel. The exact legal/audit firms and similarly named companies remain separate; each pending object retains its specific required source in the census.
Interlinked events and evidence
| Date | Event / evidence | Access and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| 24 Nov 2014 | PwC/Landwell proposal: client and team | Private primary source; source-safe summary without exposing its locator. |
| 31 Aug / 8 Sep 2015 | Registry appointment of Carlos-Gabriel Saavedra as attorney-in-fact of Landwell/PwC | Official BORME. This proves registered identity/capacity, not the scope of a Sun Park engagement. |
| 21–26 Apr 2016 | Engagement email, time appendix and meeting | 21 April evidence · 26 April event room. |
| 12–16 May 2016 | LPB and Simon Thompson Community challenges and litigation powers naming Carlos, Miguel and Elena | Private primary chain; it proves instructions/preparation, not execution, acceptance, use or continuing force of either power. |
| 6–10 Jun 2016 | Jonathan Simó transmits the report; PwC reviews/approves the version and coordinates the 10 June meeting | Private primary chain + canonical 10 June event · derivative transcript. Alejandro was copied; that does not prove authorship or attendance. The two AMRs measure ≈126m36s and the derivative states 144 min. |
| 12–16 Jun 2016 | Direct notice, invoice/appendix and penal-route instruction | Private primary sources; authorship and copy recipients remain separate. |
| 19–20 Jul 2016 | Penal route reiterated and “Tomamos nota” reply | The reply is attributed to Miguel/PwC; Carlos is copied. |
| 12 Sep 2016 | General PwC–insolvency-administrator contact | No detailed contracts, report or oral content is inferred. |
| 2019–2020 | RICPE audit history, Sun Park/CAM brochure and due-diligence event | RICPE dossier. Auditor presence is not project or brochure approval. |
| Mar–Apr 2021 | Institutional PwC Legal/Risk escalation | Does not prove personal receipt by Carlos; the exact internal map remains missing. |
| 22 Jan 2026 | CNMV response separately registered | Controlled institutional source; its content is not extended and no PwC contact or reliance is inferred. Official RICPE/auditor register. |
| 2022–2026 | Professional event and BORME corporate convergence | Acosta Matos perimeter. Formal proximity does not prove a Sun Park mandate, reward or quid pro quo. |
Decisive gaps: the exact entity/capacity of the PwC Canary Islands perimeter and the two 2021 PwC channels; executed litigation powers; the native Jonathan report v4 body and proof of delivery to the AC; engagement, conflict/independence and information-barrier records; the procedural act concerning Carlos's unpractised evidence; and full audio authentication/alignment remain missing. The page therefore does not publish an “ALL IS^” certification.
RIGHT OF REPLY · CORRECTION · EQUIVALENT PROMINENCE
PwC, Carlos Saavedra and each named professional are invited to correct this record.
Any documentary correction, engagement-scope clarification, conflict explanation, innocent account or substantive response will be incorporated with equivalent prominence. Non-response will be recorded only as non-response and will not be treated as an admission.
The objective is an auditable reconciliation: what PwC/Carlos knew, what the client instructed, what later Acosta/RICPE work existed on Sun Park or other assets, what conflict controls were applied, why Carlos's calificación evidence was not heard, and what evidence changes the analysis.
12 SEPT 2026 · ORION / RICPE / PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Professional relationships, financing and requested compliance remedies
Enrique Guerra — dated overlapping roles. RICPE’s publications of 10 February 2021 and 13 May 2022 describe him as PwC adviser/Off Counsel while holding RICPE roles. Its current biography describes the PwC role as former. This opens an exact-entity, client, mandate, chronology and independence inquiry. It does not transfer Carlos Saavedra’s 2016 knowledge to Guerra or prove that PwC performed every project review attributed to it.
Full Portfolio questions, source table and remedies
Evidence boundary: relationships require investigation; they do not establish collective knowledge, conflict breach or guilt. Documented replies and corrections are welcome through the contact route.
PwC in 2016: prior work, criminal instructions and actual AC contact
The controlled correspondence supports substantial Landwell/PwC Canarias work affecting the wider Sun Park/Aweswell project perimeter; Matkator billing alone does not define all matters known to Carlos Saavedra’s team. Exact contractual clients and privilege holders still require the engagement and acceptance records.
The client’s June/July criminal-route instructions, Miguel’s 20 July acknowledgement with Carlos copied, and PwC’s 12 September confirmation of a general telephone conversation with the insolvency administrator are separate evidence. That reply does not verify Gil’s account that PwC told the administrator the entire matter was criminal or identify the alleged targets. Ask for the speaker, date, contemporaneous record, precise words and response. Do not substitute advice from another lawyer or the recorded Community meeting for this missing proof.
The working meeting’s controlled date is 10 June 2016; “11JUN2016” is a preserved derivative label. Direct-delivery provenance is confirmed within the client’s stated scope. Two located AMRs total about 126m36s, while the derivative states 144 minutes; full technical authentication, speaker/context checking and alignment remain open. The detailed debt/vote/court-use explanations to FMMM and Prieto are material notice evidence; their exact criminal significance requires subsequent acts and the contrary audit/settlement explanation. Neither Cogolludo nor the AC is established as present by that recording.
All relevant Cajasiete engagements belong in the professional review: PwC, RSM, Grant Thornton and the relevant predecessor/local firms should be mapped by exact client and legal entity, period, asset, service, fees/referrals, conflict checks, consent/barriers and actual notice. No unlocated engagement is presumed. Portfolio should explain how any relationship affects the independence of its own review.
Board accountability and the complete disclosure record
Read the open letter to Portfolio’s board and compliance, the verified director/shareholder and international-nexus review, and the expanded alternative disclosure memorandum. The dated comparison separates existing disclosures, the 2020–2021 title/diligence tension, San Telmo client introductions, attributed criminal allegations, financing and unresolved proof.