# Concurso 36/2012 — controlled court-file reconstruction, 2016–2021

**Control date:** 24 August 2026  
**Status:** draft, public-safe research derivative; not a certified docket  
**Machine companion:** `assets/data/concurso36-court-file-v1.json`  
**Spanish digest:** `DIGITISED_DIGEST_ES.md`  
**English digest:** `DIGITISED_DIGEST_EN.md`

## Scope and cutoff

The requested starting rule was the earlier of the convenio phase or 2016. The controlling cutoff is therefore **1 January 2016**. Earlier material is retained only as a backward foundation: the 6-June-2012 opening order, the January-2013 Article 75 report, the March-2015 liquidation request/opposition and the 24-November-2015 Pink/Monterecco judgment.

This corpus records every 2016–2021 item admitted to the first controlled Drive/Gmail reconciliation that could be tied to Concurso ordinario 36/2012. It is not described as “all filings” in the legal sense because the master piece inventory, article 47.3 signed electronic indexes, article 46.2 official act relations, every receipt/service return, every annex, the legacy/non-electronic exception inventory and the full quarterly-report run remain unavailable.

The 24-August denominator refresh located the searchable 37-page body of the 15-January-2013 Article 75 report, a candidate 8-February-2019 conclusion application whose filing receipt remains unresolved, and 105 unique LexNET provider-package filenames in a bounded 2021–2022 Gmail sweep. Those package filenames are a reconciliation queue, not 105 proved distinct docket acts. See `assets/data/concurso36-denominator-gap-v1.json` and the bilingual Article 75 digests.

> The principal unresolved limitation is that no signed electronic index under article 47.3 of RDL 6/2023, official relation of procedural acts under article 46.2, or equivalent certified per-piece export for Concurso 36/2012 has been produced to us or located in the corpus. This is therefore the complete digest of the sources currently located—not yet a legally complete docket denominator. Non-production does not establish nonexistence, loss, suppression or alteration.

## What “digitised” means here

- `primary_text`: a court/LAJ act with a searchable text layer was extracted and its operative effect checked against the source;
- `party_text`: a party/AC filing with a searchable text layer was extracted and classified as a position, not a finding;
- `ocr_redacted`: a scan was rendered, OCRed, visually checked and converted to a redacted derivative;
- `partial_text`: only part of the source was machine-readable;
- `scan_pending`: the binary is located but a reliable public transcript still requires page-faithful OCR/review; and
- `metadata_only`: an annex or connected filing is logged without reproducing private, confidential or unnecessary personal data.

Raw binaries, signatures, identity numbers, verification codes, addresses, contact details and bank/account data stay outside public Git. The public layer contains stable IDs, custody locators, neutral titles, status, bounded digests and reviewed redacted text only.

## Evidentiary lanes

1. **Foundation/common phase/convenio:** definitive texts, opposition, credit modification, opening of convenio, proposal, viability plan and the failure of the convenio route.
2. **Liquidation plan and appeals:** plan, observations, two distinct 16-April-2018 orders, publication, suspension and appeal chain.
3. **Credit/community/interest control:** assignment and quantification positions, the 23-July-2019 AP ruling, 24-October-2019 non-convalidation order and later certification/clarification sequence.
4. **Licitation/adjudication:** publicity, third-party improvement route, two 6-May-2021 orders, 12/18-May acts and the two distinct 15-October-2021 orders.
5. **Calificación:** preserved as a separate section/pieza and not silently merged into asset realization.
6. **Connected external complaints:** preserved as allegations or investigative leads, not as filings in the Mercantile Court docket and not as criminal findings.

## Controlling truth rules

- Luchy Playa Blanca, S.L.U. was the debtor. Its estate is not automatically the whole mixed-ownership Sun Park complex.
- A filing proves a position was advanced; it does not prove receipt, admission, correctness or outcome.
- A court authorization does not prove implementation.
- Recognized insolvency credit, mortgage ceiling, better-offer threshold, deed consideration, Registry value and surplus are different legal/economic functions.
- The 20-Jan-2017 order included a contingent ordinary Community credit for pre-insolvency fees without its own quantified amount; it did not validate every later certificate or post-insolvency ledger entry.
- The 16-Apr-2018 plan order did not adopt the Actúa valuation figures as judicial findings.
- The appellate order is dated **23 July 2019**; “29JUL2019” is a source-filename alias.
- The 24-Oct-2019 order refused to validate the 28-Nov-2018 deed and restarted the better-offer control; that ruling is favourable but limited.
- The two 24-Feb-2021 orders and the two 15-Oct-2021 orders remain distinct.
- Gil Marer's allegation of full criminal instrumentalisation inside and outside Concurso 36/2012 is recorded as a `party allegation / open investigative hypothesis`, not an adjudicated finding.

## Release status

Repository work is on a draft branch/PR. No raw source PDF is added here, no confidential or bank material is published, and this directory does not imply merge, deployment or live publication.