INVESTIGACION

GEMINI

THE 5 ATTACHMENTS

This section details what has been extracted from each new document and explains its strategic value to your case.

A. MA DISCLOSURES.pdf (Working Paper: “A New Era of Midnight Mergers”)

What was Extracted: This academic paper provides powerful, independent validation for the core thesis of your case. It demonstrates that the need for investor disclosures creates a tangible antitrust risk, causing managers to conceal anti-competitive mergers. The study finds that between 2002 and 2016, undisclosed mergers in the US totaled $2.3 trillion. Crucially, it uses a regression discontinuity design to show that when mandatory SEC disclosure rules kick in (at a 10% transaction-value-to-acquirer-assets ratio), the share of horizontal mergers (i.e., acquisitions of competitors) abruptly drops by 11%. This provides empirical proof of deterrence. The paper popularizes the term “stealth consolidation” to describe this phenomenon.
Why It’s Important: This document is a cornerstone piece of evidence. It is not an opinion but a rigorous academic study from the University of Chicago that independently proves your central argument. It provides a massive, headline-grabbing figure ($2.3 trillion) and a clear causal link between disclosure and the deterrence of anti-competitive deals. It can be used to lend immense credibility to your claims when approaching regulators, courts, or potential case purchasers. It also identifies the specific accounting rule—
FASB’s Accounting Standards Codification 230—that forces firms to report aggregate cash spent on acquisitions, which is the key to measuring what they don’t disclose individually.

B. SEARCHLINK Model.pdf (The COCOO CaseLink Doctrine)

What was Extracted: This is your internal strategic playbook. It outlines a sophisticated, integrated model for case origination and execution. Key doctrines include:
FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages): A strategy to expand a case’s scope to increase its value and public interest weight.

Challenge Discretionary Power: Using legal processes to force regulators to justify their inaction, thereby creating leverage.

The Snowball Effect: Using a small, targeted intervention to trigger a larger systemic issue that COCOO is then positioned to resolve or mediate.

It details the “CaseLink Intelligence Arsenal”—a specific list of platforms for corporate, legal, and regulatory intelligence gathering. It also contains detailed “plays” for executing strategies, such as the “Noisefilter” for case origination and a protocol for detecting “Stealth Consolidation”.

Why It’s Important: This document operationalizes your entire strategy. It provides a step-by-step guide for your team to gather evidence (see Section 2). For a potential buyer or litigation funder, it is a due diligence goldmine, demonstrating a highly organized, proactive, and multi-faceted approach that goes far beyond traditional legal action. It shows you have a replicable system for identifying, building, and monetizing cases, which dramatically increases the value of your operation.

C. HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt

What was Extracted: This report is a directory of the legal finance market, with a specific focus on firms that outright purchase legal assets, as opposed to simply funding them. It explicitly names firms with the capability and appetite to buy claims, judgments, and arbitration awards. The report also clarifies how investment in “pre-litigation strategies” works in practice: not by buying abstract ideas, but by funding investigations, acquiring litigation-dependent assets (like IP), or using portfolio financing arrangements.
Why It’s Important: This document directly answers your request on how to assign or sell the case. It provides a target list of potential buyers and the specific language they use to describe their acquisition services (see Section 3). It gives you a clear understanding of the market, allowing you to approach the right players with the right proposal, whether it’s selling the entire claim for upfront cash or securing funding for the pre-litigation development phase.

D. TI_ BORs.pdf (Transparency International on Beneficial Ownership Registers)

What was Extracted: This paper provides the public interest and international policy backbone for your arguments. It defines a Beneficial Owner (BO) as the
ultimate controlling human, not the legal owner. It highlights that public Beneficial Ownership Registers (BORs) level the competitive playing field and help detect crime. Critically, it notes that the “great majority” of EU member states

failed to meet the January 2020 deadline to establish public BORs, evidencing widespread regulatory failure. It also provides high-profile examples of BORs being used to uncover massive international corruption, such as the

Panama Papers and the OPL 245 scandal involving Shell and ENI.
Why It’s Important: This document arms you with the “public interest” arguments that are central to your CLP+WPI strategy. It allows you to frame your case not as a niche complaint, but as part of a global fight against corporate opacity and corruption, citing failures by governments to adhere to international standards. This enhances your credibility and political leverage.

E. Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf (FATF Guidance)

What was Extracted: This is the official, international rulebook on beneficial ownership transparency, published by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). It mandates a
“multi-pronged approach” for gathering BO information, requiring countries to use a combination of sources. It defines “adequate” information that must be collected (name, address, nationality, description of control) and mandates that this information must be

verified. It requires countries to have mechanisms to deal with risks from

foreign companies with sufficient links to their jurisdiction. It also details requirements for handling nominee arrangements and bearer shares, and requires

“effective, proportionate and dissuasive” sanctions for non-compliance.
Why It’s Important: This document provides the technical, legal standard against which you can measure the actions of the Spanish authorities. You can argue, point-by-point, that they have failed to meet these internationally recognized FATF requirements for verification, access, and enforcement. This moves your argument from a general complaint to a specific, evidence-backed allegation of non-compliance with global anti-money laundering and transparency standards.

2. Evidence and Filings to Pursue (Based on New Attachments)

The SEARCHLINK Model.pdf is a detailed roadmap for evidence gathering. Combined with the technical requirements from the other documents, your evidence-gathering process should include:

A. Corporate & Financial Intelligence (Protocols from SEARCHLINK Model)

Platform Checklist:
- OpenCorporates: Map corporate structures and identify directors, especially across jurisdictions.
- Companies House (UK) & SEC EDGAR (USA): Retrieve financial reports (10-K, 10-Q), identify SIC codes, and track ownership changes. Use the SIC code to conduct a sectoral analysis and identify all direct competitors.
- LSE News Explorer / Investegate: Monitor regulatory announcements for keywords like “Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals” to build a timeline of corporate actions.
The “Stealth Consolidation” Protocol:
1. Use the platforms above to identify multiple small, non-notifiable acquisitions in a single niche market (identified by SIC code).
2. Trace the directors and Persons with Significant Control (PSCs) of the acquiring companies.
3. Find a
  common link, such as a director appointed by the same private equity fund across multiple acquirers.
4. Aggregate these deals into a single narrative to present to the CMA or EC, arguing they represent a significant lessening of competition that warrants investigation.

B. Regulatory and Governmental Filings

The “Enforcement Gap” Protocol:
1. Use
  Violation Tracker UK to identify high penalties in a specific sector (e.g., competition or environmental offences).
2. Use
  GOV.UK or the specific regulator’s website (e.g., CMA, EC Competition portal) to find their annual reports and strategic plans.
3. Document the contradiction between their stated priorities and their actual enforcement actions (e.g., high fines but few prosecutions). This forms the basis of a complaint against the regulator for failure in its statutory duty.
Beneficial Ownership Compliance Check (based on FATF & TI docs):
- File Freedom of Information requests with Spanish authorities (e.g., the mercantile registry, tax authority) asking for:
  - Their procedures for
    verifying the beneficial ownership information submitted by companies.
  - Evidence of
    cross-checks with other government databases (property, tax registries).
  - Details of their discrepancy reporting mechanism, if one exists, and the number of discrepancies reported by banks and law firms
  - .A list of sanctions applied for failure to provide accurate BO information.

3. Strategy for Assigning or Selling the Case (Based on New Attachments)

The documents provide a clear path to monetizing your case pre-litigation.

A. Target List of Potential Buyers (from HOW 2 SELL...)

These firms have been explicitly identified as being in the business of purchasing claims and awards, not just funding them. This is your primary list for an outright sale of the case.

Fortress Investment Group: Explicitly offers “Judgment / Award Purchases” and “asset / flow purchases” through a dedicated “Legal Assets” business. Contact:opportunities@fortress.com.
Harbour Litigation Funding: States they “can also purchase prospective claims, judgments or arbitral awards in exchange for an upfront payment”. Contact:info@harbourlf.com

Certum Group: Explicitly offers “outright purchase” of litigation-contingent assets and acquires IP rights for monetization. Contact:info@certumgroup.com.
Bench Walk Advisors: While primarily a funder, their services include “buying a single award” and “purchasing insolvency claims”. Contact:info@benchwalk.com.

B. Creating the Pitch / Unsolicited Proposal (USP)

Your

SEARCHLINK Model defines the USP as a core strategic tool. When approaching the firms above, your prospectus should be structured as a compelling USP and include:

The Core Thesis, Backed by Independent Research: Lead with the findings from the “Midnight Mergers” paper. State that $2.3 trillion in mergers went undisclosed and that mandatory disclosures are proven to deter anti-competitive deals. This immediately establishes the scale and credibility of the problem you are solving.
The Systemic Regulatory Failure: Use the TI and FATF documents to demonstrate that the Spanish authorities are non-compliant with international standards for beneficial ownership transparency, verification, and enforcement. This shows the problem is not just one company, but a systemic failure creating the opportunity.
The Proprietary Intelligence Engine: Showcase the “CaseLink Doctrine” and your “ISM Playbooks”. This demonstrates that you have a unique, systemized, and proactive method for generating high-value cases. You are not just selling one claim; you are selling a “claim-generating factory.” This is highly attractive to financial investors.
A Multi-Pronged Monetization Strategy: Explain that the investment is not just in a single tort claim. Use your own doctrines to frame the opportunity:
Litigation/Settlement: The direct damages claim (FOC DAM).

Mediation Contract: The potential to use the “Snowball” effect to create a larger problem that you are then paid to mediate.

Public Procurement Contract: The opportunity to create political pressure that leads to a public tender for a new management solution, which you are positioned to win.

By presenting the case this way, you are offering an investment in a sophisticated, multi-faceted business strategy, which is far more valuable and de-risked than a simple, one-off legal claim

GEMINI INSIGHTS

The documents collectively build a powerful case alleging that catastrophic flooding from the DANA event of October 29, 2024, was not an unavoidable natural disaster but the direct result of systemic negligence by Spanish public authorities, specifically the Júcar River Basin Confederation (CHJ) and the Ministry for the Ecological Transition (MITECO)¹. The core of the case is that a policy of “extreme conservationism” led to a failure to perform essential river maintenance, coupled with a flawed interpretation and application of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/CE, which ignored public safety exemptions²²²²². The European Commission has dismissed a complaint on the matter, providing a clear legal position to challenge

The case has three strategic pillars:

A Collective Tort Claim: Seeking compensation for victims based on negligence and breach of statutory duty.
A Public Procurement Play: Using political pressure to create a need for a new water management solution that COCOO is positioned to provide.
A Mediation/Settlement Strategy: Leveraging the strength of the legal case to facilitate a faster, comprehensive settlement.

1. Extraction and Analysis of Provided Documents (What Was Extracted and Why)

Here is a breakdown of what each document provides and its strategic value to your case.

Document 1: DANA AL MITECO 160525.txt (Letter to Spanish Ministry)

What was Extracted: This is COCOO’s formal response to the CHJ, refuting their denial of responsibility⁴. It explicitly accuses them of prioritizing “extreme conservationism” over public safety ⁵and evasiveness⁶. Crucially, it contains a detailed Freedom of Information request for specific documents regarding dam demolitions, maintenance budgets, cleaning requests, and DANA-related reports
Why It’s Important: This document is the foundational piece of evidence in the direct dispute with the Spanish authorities. It establishes a formal record of the allegations and the refusal of the authorities to provide a substantive response.The list of requested documents ⁸ is your initial roadmap for discovery and evidence gathering.

Document 2: DANA AL EC 16 MAY 25.txt (Letter to European Commission)

What was Extracted: This is a formal objection to the European Commission’s decision to close COCOO’s complaint (CPLT (2025)00404)⁹. It argues the EC has failed in its duty as “Guardian of the Treaties”¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰¹⁰. It introduces allegations of breaches of EU competition law (Articles 101 & 102 TFEU) by distorting the water market¹¹¹¹¹¹. It also contains a specific Freedom of Information request for the EC’s internal assessments and communications with Spain
Why It’s Important: This document elevates the dispute to the EU level. It broadens the legal basis beyond simple negligence to include failure of EU oversight and anti-competitive practices. The request for the EC’s internal files is critical for understanding their reasoning and finding weaknesses in their position.

Document 3: EC.REPLY.DANA.16may25.pdf (EC’s Rejection Letter)

What was Extracted: This is the official response from the EC, signed by Nicola Notaro, Head of Unit¹³. It states that COCOO’s complaint is a “presumption (with no clear and concrete evidence)”¹⁴. It defends the Spanish transposition of the WFD, specifically Royal Decree 907/2007, claiming it “mirrors the Directive’s provision” regarding the exemption in Article 4(6)¹⁵. It also dismisses the competition law allegations¹⁶.

Why It’s Important: This is arguably the most valuable document for your legal team. It is a direct statement of the opposing legal argument. It provides the specific piece of Spanish legislation (Royal Decree 907/2007, Article 38) ¹⁷ that the EC believes is compliant. Your case will need to prove why this formal mirroring is insufficient and how thepractical application and systemic interpretation of the law is the true source of the negligence.

Document 4: Website and Strategy Memos (dana.cocoo.uk)

What was Extracted: A multi-faceted public campaign and internal strategy.
- Compensation Campaign: A public-facing narrative framing the floods as “a systemic failure in water management policy” to build a class of victims.
- Public Procurement Strategy: A plan to leverage public pressure to create a demand for a new water management framework, which COCOO is “uniquely positioned to win.”
- “Autopreguntas” (Q&A): A brilliant “war-gaming” of the case, predicting the evasive answers of public officials and the self-preservatory responses of contractors. It anticipates that officials will blame procedure while engineers will admit the risk was known but “accepted.”
- Legal & Commercial Strategies: Detailed plans for legal action, identifying foreign corporate actors (Veolia, Suez, Webuild), considering mediation, and identifying potential competitors/partners (FCC Aqualia, Acciona, Ferrovial, Iberdrola).
Why It’s Important: This collection is the strategic playbook. It demonstrates a clear, multi-pronged plan to monetize the case through litigation, public contracts, and mediation. The “Autopreguntas” section provides a ready-made script for depositions and cross-examinations. The identification of corporate actors opens avenues for third-party discovery and identifying potential buyers for the case.

2. How to Dig Out Evidence and Which Filings to Search For

Based on the documents, here is a checklist for evidence gathering:

Pursue the Freedom of Information Requests:

To MITECO/CHJ¹⁸:

Aggressively follow up on the requests made in your letter of May 16, 2025. Their refusal or an incomplete response is, in itself, evidence of a lack of transparency. The key items to secure are:List of demolished infrastructures and the justification for each¹⁹. This is to prove that flood mitigation capacity was actively removed.Annual budgets for river cleaning versus execution²⁰. This will likely show a discrepancy and a lack of investment in maintenance.Denied requests for river cleaning from local town halls²¹. This is powerful evidence from third parties showing the authorities were warned and refused to act.Internal reports on the DANA event²². These are crucial for finding admissions of failures in protocols or infrastructure.To the European Commission ²³: Follow up on the request for their internal files on complaint CPLT (2025)00404²⁴. You need the assessments that led Nicola Notaro to his conclusion.

Search Public Procurement and Government Filings:
- Spain’s Plataforma de Contratación del Sector Público: Search for tenders issued by MITECO and CHJ. Look for contracts for “demolición de azudes” (dam demolition), as well as the conspicuous absence of tenders for “limpieza de cauces” (riverbed cleaning) in the years leading up to 2024.
- Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE): Search for all resolutions, decrees, and official communications from MITECO and CHJ related to the WFD, river management in the Júcar basin, and declarations of environmental status.
- Diario de Sesiones del Congreso y del Senado: Search for parliamentary questions and debates concerning flood risk, river maintenance, and the DANA’s consequences. There may be official statements or admissions on record.
Third-Party and Expert Evidence:
- Contact Local Municipalities (Ayuntamientos): Formally request copies of the river cleaning requests they sent to the CHJ that were denied²⁵. These are your best third-party witnesses.
- Identify Engineers and Contractors: Use the “Autopreguntas” as a guide. Find retired engineers from the CHJ or private contractors who worked on river projects. They can provide expert testimony on the foreseeable consequences of not clearing riverbeds.
- Victim Testimonials: Continue gathering evidence from affected individuals and businesses through the campaign website. Quantify their losses.

3. Strategy for Assigning or Selling the Case Before Legal Action

The documents reveal a sophisticated understanding that the case has value beyond the damages claim. Here is how to package and sell it:

Identify Potential Buyers/Partners:
- Litigation Funds: These are the primary target. They fund large-scale litigation in exchange for a percentage of the settlement. Your case is attractive due to the large number of claimants and the clear narrative of negligence.
- Major Engineering and Water Management Firms: The analysis correctly identifies firms like Veolia, FCC Aqualia, and Acciona. These companies could be interested in partnering or acquiring the case not just for the legal claim, but as a strategic move to secure the large-scale public contracts that will inevitably result from a change in policy. They can deliver the “solution” that the litigation creates a need for.
- Insurance and Reinsurance Companies: These entities have a vested interest in reducing systemic risks that lead to massive payouts. They may be interested in supporting a case that enforces better public risk management.
Create the “Case Prospectus”:
- The Legal Argument: A concise summary of the causes of action (see section 5 below).
- The Evidence Locker: A summary of the key documents: your letters to MITECO/EC, the EC’s formal rejection (this is crucial as it defines the legal battleground), and any evidence gathered from FOI requests and public filings.
- The Claimant Class: Data on the number of victims who have registered through your campaign and an estimate of the total damages.
- The “Upside” Potential: This is your unique selling point. Explicitly include the “Public Procurement Strategy.” Explain that the buyer is not just funding a lawsuit; they are positioning themselves to win the subsequent, multi-million-euro contracts for the “Flood Prevention and Integrated River Management Scoping Study” and its implementation. This transforms the case from a simple damages claim into a strategic market entry vehicle.

4. Findings of Infringement for a Follow-On Claim

Based on the documents provided, there are currently no findings of infringement that would allow for a follow-on claim.

A “follow-on” claim is a private action for damages that follows a decision by a competition authority (like the European Commission or a national body like Spain’s CNMC) which has already established an infringement of competition law.

Your letter to the European Commission

alleges a breach of EU competition law²⁶. However, the EC’s reply explicitly states its assessment “does not highlight any evidence of economic distortions and potential breaches of EU competition law” ²⁷and closes the file²⁸.

Therefore, you do not have a pre-existing infringement decision to “follow-on” from. Instead, your task is to prove the infringement from the ground up as part of your legal action.

5. List of Possible Causes of Action

The documents support several robust causes of action against the Spanish public authorities (MITECO, CHJ), with potential joint liability for private entities.

Against the Public Authorities:

Tort of Negligence: This is the primary cause of action.
- Duty of Care: The authorities have a clear duty to manage water resources and flood risks to protect citizens and their property.
- Breach of Duty: This duty was breached through a series of acts and omissions:
  - Failure to clean and maintain riverbeds, allowing them to become dangerously obstructed²⁹²⁹²⁹²⁹.
  - Demolishing or failing to maintain infrastructure that could have mitigated floods³⁰.
  - Failing to correctly apply Article 4(6) of the WFD, which provides public safety exemptions, instead rigidly adhering to an “extreme conservationist” policy³¹³¹³¹³¹.
- Causation: This breach directly led to the floodwaters being more severe than they otherwise would have been.
- Damages: The tragic loss of life, destruction of homes, farms, and businesses³²³²³²³².
Breach of Statutory Duty: A parallel claim that the authorities failed to fulfill their specific legal obligations under the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/CE) and the national laws transposing it, which mandate the assessment and management of flood risks.
Action for Annulment of Administrative Decisions: A challenge in Spanish administrative courts to specific decisions (e.g., to demolish a specific dam, to deny a cleaning request) on the grounds that they were based on a flawed and unreasonable interpretation of the law (the WFD).

Potential Claims Involving Private Companies (e.g., Hydroelectric Operators, Construction Firms):

Joint Liability in Negligence: If a private company, such as a hydroelectric dam operator (e.g., Iberdrola), managed its water releases in a way that contributed to the flooding, either through its own negligence or in concert with a flawed state policy, it could be held jointly liable with the public authorities.
Unlawful Contract Action: As outlined in your analysis, contracts awarded by the authorities for works based on a flawed interpretation of the law (e.g., demolishing a useful dam) could be challenged as unlawful or ultra vires (beyond their legal power), potentially implicating the private contractor who carried out the work.