INVESTIGACION

UNETE – ES GRATIS QUIENES SOMOS   MEDIACION   DIPLOMACIA   DONACIONES  PRIVACIDAD CONDICIONES       PROYECTOS ABIERTOS

---

COAS & FOIS

### Findings of Infringement Supporting a Follow-On Claim

The European Commission’s letter of formal notice dated September 25, 2024, confirms Spain’s failure to transpose Directive 2022/2464 (CSRD) into national law by the required deadline, constituting a breach of EU law under Article 258 TFEU. This infringement procedure, acknowledged in the Commission’s April 23, 2025, response to COCOO, establishes Spain’s non-compliance, enabling follow-on claims for damages under the Francovich doctrine, which holds Member States liable for harm caused by failure to implement EU directives. The Commission’s action validates COCOO’s assertion that Spain’s omission created a regulatory vacuum, distorting competition and harming ESG-compliant firms and investors. Spain’s transposition of Directive 2021/1269 in November 2023, after a delay, further supports claims of tardy compliance, potentially causing harm between 2022 and 2023. The CNMC’s documented sanctions against Spanish firms like Dragados, Sacyr, Carat España, and Media Sapiens for cartel activities in construction, rail, and advertising sectors, as detailed in the CNMC document, indicate anti-competitive practices facilitated by the lack of CSRD-mandated ESG transparency, reinforcing the link between Spain’s omission and market harm. The Transparency International report highlights Spain’s lag in implementing the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD), with only five Member States meeting the January 2020 deadline, suggesting a pattern of transparency failures that exacerbates CSRD-related opacity. The FATF guidance notes low global compliance with beneficial ownership transparency standards, with only 9% of countries meeting Recommendation 24, implying systemic weaknesses in Spain’s regulatory framework that align with CSRD non-transposition.

### Possible Causes of Action

A primary cause of action is state liability under the Francovich doctrine, allowing claims against Spain for damages caused by its failure to transpose the CSRD, breaching EU law and causing foreseeable harm to ESG-compliant firms and investors through market distortions. Breach of statutory duty under EU law, specifically Article 4(3) TEU (duty of sincere cooperation), provides another basis, as Spain’s omission undermined the EU’s internal market and competition principles. For public sector contracts, claims can be pursued for violation of EU public procurement law principles (transparency, non-discrimination, equal treatment), arguing that tenders were flawed due to unequal ESG compliance costs, rendering awards ultra vires and voidable. Against private Spanish firms, tortious claims for unfair competition are viable, as their exploitation of CSRD non-compliance to undercut competitors constitutes anti-competitive conduct. Claims for causing loss by unlawful means can target firms leveraging Spain’s illegal omission to gain market advantages. In contract law, fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation applies where Spanish firms failed to disclose their non-compliance, inducing foreign parties into unfair agreements. Contracts may also be voidable due to fundamental mistake, where non-Spanish parties assumed a level regulatory playing field, or unconscionable due to the “situational monopoly” created by Spain’s omission, granting Spanish firms illegitimate bargaining power. Consumer claims for deceit or misrepresentation can target firms engaging in greenwashing, making unverified ESG claims enabled by the lack of CSRD reporting. Indirectly, competition law claims under Article 101 TFEU could address cartel activities by sanctioned firms, though these are secondary to state liability claims.

### Possible Evidence or Sources of Evidence

Financial statements from British and EU firms, accessed via Companies House or the Spanish Commercial Registry, can document losses due to asymmetric ESG compliance costs, substantiating the 320 million pounds damages estimate. Stakeholder affidavits from ESG-compliant firms, investors, and trade associations, gathered through COCOO’s campaign portal, can detail competitive disadvantages or investment losses caused by Spain’s omission. Expert economic and environmental analyses, commissioned by COCOO, can quantify market distortions, linking CSRD non-transposition to unfair advantages for non-compliant firms. Spanish firms’ annual reports, available through the Spanish Commercial Registry, can be analyzed for aggregate merger values, as suggested by the MA DISCLOSURES paper, to identify undisclosed deals enabled by ESG opacity. EU merger notifications under Regulation 139/2004, searchable in the Commission’s public register for 2022–2025, can reveal deals lacking ESG data, supporting claims of regulatory failure. CNMC’s merger review and investigation records, obtainable via freedom of information requests, can document instances where missing ESG data hindered assessments. The Commission’s infringement documents, including the September 25, 2024, letter of formal notice, accessible in the infringement database, reinforce Spain’s liability. Beneficial ownership records from the Spanish Commercial Registry, as per FATF and TI guidance, can identify opaque corporate structures linked to CSRD non-compliance. CNMC sanctions reports, detailing fines against Dragados, Sacyr, and others, provide evidence of anti-competitive practices facilitated by transparency gaps. OpenCorporates and LSE News Explorer data, per the SEARCHLINK Model, can map corporate ecosystems to detect undisclosed mergers or dominant positions. Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition Portals can reveal CNMC enforcement gaps, supporting claims of regulatory inaction.

### Clarifications and Limitations

I assume COCOO has standing to represent affected parties, but confirmation is needed, as collective locus standi is mentioned but not detailed. The 320 million pounds damages estimate requires concrete evidence, which I lack access to without direct searches in registries or stakeholder submissions. Real-time access to Spanish Commercial Registry data, EU merger filings, or CNMC records is unavailable, requiring manual searches. I cannot generate images or charts without user confirmation but can propose a canvas panel for damages visualization if requested. The case’s success hinges on substantiating damages and proving the causal link between CSRD non-transposition and harm, which the listed evidence sources aim to address.

### Conclusion

The findings of infringement, anchored by the Commission’s infringement procedure and CNMC sanctions, provide a robust basis for follow-on claims. Causes of action under Francovich liability, breach of statutory duty, and tortious claims against private firms offer multiple legal avenues. Evidence from financial records, stakeholder testimonies, and regulatory data, sourced via registries and COCOO’s campaign, can substantiate the case, enabling COCOO to pursue compensation and advance its transparency mission. Immediate steps include evidence collection, outreach to litigation funders, and mediation scheduling to maximize outcomes.

---

THE 5 ATTACHMENTS

Analysis of “SEARCHLINK Model.pdf”

#### Extracted Insights
This document outlines the COCOO CaseLink Doctrine, a strategic framework for evidence gathering, case origination, and public contract acquisition, leveraging a suite of intelligence platforms and tactical protocols. It is highly relevant to COCOO’s case, as it provides a methodology to identify market distortions, regulatory failures, and actionable opportunities.

The document details intelligence platforms for corporate, legal, regulatory, trade, and procurement data, including OpenCorporates, Companies House, LSE News Explorer, SEC EDGAR, Spanish Commercial Registry, Violation Tracker UK, EC Competition Portals, and Find a Tender. These platforms enable COCOO to map corporate structures, track mergers, identify regulatory violations, and uncover tender opportunities. For example, OpenCorporates and Companies House can reveal “stealth consolidation” by tracking directors and SIC codes, while Violation Tracker UK identifies enforcement gaps, supporting complaints against regulators like CNMC.

The tactical protocols (Part II) provide step-by-step methods for extracting actionable intelligence. Protocol 2.1 (Corporate Intelligence) outlines mapping corporate ecosystems to detect undisclosed mergers, crucial for proving market distortions caused by Spain’s CSRD non-transposition. Protocol 2.3 (Regulatory Data) emphasizes identifying enforcement gaps, such as CNMC’s failure to address ESG opacity, aligning with COCOO’s claim that Spain’s omission undermines regulatory effectiveness. Protocol 2.5 (Public Procurement) details strategies for winning tenders by analyzing competitors’ weaknesses, offering a revenue stream to fund litigation or advocacy.

The Integrated Strategic Model (ISM) Playbook (Part III) includes four workflows:
– **Noisefilter Play**: Monitors sectors for violations and litigation triggers, qualifying cases based on doctrines like FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants, Monetize Damages).
– **Systemic Trade Barrier USP**: Identifies trade barriers for WTO disputes, securing public contracts.
– **Strategic Complaints & Snowball**: Files complaints to trigger broader investigations, positioning COCOO as a mediator.
– **Dominating Public Tenders**: Uses intelligence to craft winning bids, leveraging competitor weaknesses.

The document emphasizes doctrines like FOC DAM, PTW (Political Time Window), and USP (Unsolicited Proposal), which align COCOO’s commercial goals with public interest, enhancing leverage in disputes and tenders.

#### Relevance to the Case
The SEARCHLINK Model provides a blueprint for building evidence to prove Spain’s CSRD non-transposition caused market distortions. By using OpenCorporates and Spanish Commercial Registry data, COCOO can identify Spanish firms benefiting from ESG opacity, supporting claims of competitive disadvantage. The enforcement gap protocol strengthens the argument that CNMC’s inaction violates EU competition principles (e.g., Regulation 1/2003). The FOC DAM doctrine supports expanding the case to include additional victims (e.g., SMEs, consumers), increasing damages and public interest weight. The tender strategy offers a monetization path by securing public contracts to fund advocacy or compensate stakeholders.

#### Strategic Use
To leverage this document, I would:
– Use Protocol 2.1 to map Spanish firms’ corporate structures via OpenCorporates and the Spanish Commercial Registry, identifying undisclosed mergers or dominant positions enabled by missing ESG data.
– Apply Protocol 2.3 to document CNMC’s enforcement gaps using Violation Tracker UK and EC Competition Portals, filing a super-complaint to trigger a market investigation.
– Implement the Noisefilter Play to monitor Spanish sectors (e.g., energy, banking) for ESG violations, qualifying additional claimants to bolster the 320 million pounds damages claim.
– Pursue the Dominating Public Tenders Play to secure UK or EU contracts for compliance consulting, using Find a Tender to target ESG-focused tenders where COCOO’s expertise gives a competitive edge.
– Monetize the case by packaging it for sale to litigation funders (e.g., Fortress, Harbour) using AlphaLit to structure evidence, emphasizing the Commission’s infringement procedure and documented harms.

#### Filings and Evidence
– **Search**: Spanish Commercial Registry for financial statements and merger data; EC Competition Portals for CNMC’s case records; LSE News Explorer for UK firms’ ESG-related announcements.
– **Prepare**: A super-complaint to CNMC or CMA, citing enforcement gaps; a USP to UK or EU bodies for compliance consulting contracts.
– **Evidence**: Financial reports showing losses, regulatory violation records, and expert analyses of market distortions.

### Analysis of “Spanish Guidance-Beneficial-Ownership-Legal-Persons.pdf.coredownload.pdf”

#### Extracted Insights
This FATF guidance document on beneficial ownership (BO) transparency for legal persons, updated in 2023, outlines standards to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities by ensuring accurate, up-to-date BO information. It is highly relevant to COCOO’s case, as Spain’s failure to transpose CSRD aligns with broader transparency issues, potentially exacerbating opaque corporate structures.

The document emphasizes a multi-pronged approach (Recommendation 24) combining company-held BO data, public registries, and complementary sources (e.g., financial institutions). It notes that Spain’s Commercial Registry must collect basic information (e.g., company name, directors, tax ID) and BO data, but many registries lack verification, reducing reliability. The guidance highlights risks from complex, multi-jurisdictional structures, nominal arrangements, and bearer shares, which obscure BO and facilitate illicit activities like market manipulation.

Key points include:
– Countries must assess BO risks for domestic and foreign entities with sufficient links (e.g., significant business activity in Spain), mitigating risks through reporting requirements and sanctions.
– BO is defined as the natural person(s) ultimately owning or controlling a legal entity, often via a 25% ownership threshold or other control mechanisms (e.g., voting rights, debt instruments).
– Sanctions for non-compliance (e.g., false BO declarations) should be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive, including administrative, civil, or criminal penalties.
– International cooperation is critical, with countries required to share BO data promptly, avoiding restrictive conditions.

The document cites mutual evaluations showing low global effectiveness in BO transparency, with only 9% of countries meeting FATF standards, suggesting systemic issues in Spain’s regulatory framework.

#### Relevance to the Case
Spain’s CSRD non-transposition likely exacerbates BO opacity, as ESG reporting includes governance disclosures that could reveal control structures. This supports COCOO’s claim that Spain’s omission creates a regulatory vacuum, enabling anti-competitive practices (e.g., undisclosed mergers, dominant positions). The FATF’s emphasis on enforcement gaps and sanctions strengthens the argument that CNMC’s inaction violates EU and international obligations. The multi-jurisdictional risk focus aligns with COCOO’s claim of cross-border harms to British stakeholders, justifying international remedies.

#### Strategic Use
I would:
– Argue that Spain’s CSRD failure violates FATF Recommendation 24 by enabling opaque governance, citing the document’s call for verified BO data to prevent market distortions.
– Use Spanish Commercial Registry data to identify firms with complex ownership structures, linking these to CSRD-related opacity and anti-competitive practices.
– File complaints with the Commission or CJEU, citing FATF standards and Spain’s low compliance in mutual evaluations as evidence of systemic regulatory failure.
– Leverage international cooperation requirements to request BO data from Spanish authorities, supporting cross-border damage claims.
– Monetize by offering BO compliance consulting to Spanish firms or EU bodies, securing contracts via Find a Tender, or selling the claim to funders like Certum, emphasizing FATF violations.

#### Filings and Evidence
– **Search**: Spanish Commercial Registry for BO records; EC State Aid Search for Spanish firms benefiting from opacity; FATF mutual evaluation reports for Spain’s compliance gaps.
– **Prepare**: A CJEU submission linking CSRD non-transposition to FATF violations; a USP for BO compliance contracts.
– **Evidence**: BO records showing opaque structures, regulatory gap analyses, and stakeholder testimonies on governance-related losses.

### Analysis of “TI_BORs.pdf”

#### Extracted Insights
This Transparency International (TI) document, dated August 27, 2023, discusses beneficial ownership registers (BORs), their importance in combating corruption and money laundering, and implementation challenges. It is directly relevant to COCOO’s case, as CSRD’s governance reporting requirements overlap with BO transparency, and Spain’s failure undermines both.

Key insights include:
– BORs enhance competitiveness by leveling the playing field, as corruption and opacity distort markets, aligning with COCOO’s claim of competitive disadvantages for ESG-compliant firms.
– Public BORs support due diligence, deter crime, and facilitate cross-border investigations, with examples like Ukraine’s use of BORs to recover 5.5 billion dollars in stolen assets.
– EU’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD) mandates public BORs for companies, but only five Member States (not including Spain) met the January 2020 deadline, highlighting Spain’s transparency lag.
– Secrecy jurisdictions (e.g., British Virgin Islands, Liechtenstein) and partial compliance (e.g., Panama’s private BOR) create loopholes, suggesting Spain’s CSRD delay may enable similar opacity.
– Sanctions for BOR non-compliance include administrative measures (e.g., rejecting registrations) and criminal penalties, supporting calls for action against Spanish firms.
– The UK’s BOR, accessed over 2 billion times annually, demonstrates demand for transparency, with NGOs identifying 4,500 non-compliant companies, prompting action.

#### Relevance to the Case
Spain’s failure to transpose CSRD, which includes governance disclosures, likely exacerbates BO opacity, enabling market distortions and anti-competitive practices. The document’s examples of recovered assets and market leveling support COCOO’s 320 million pounds damages claim and public interest narrative. Spain’s delay in meeting 5AMLD deadlines reinforces its pattern of transparency failures, strengthening state liability arguments under Francovich principles. The emphasis on sanctions provides a basis for demanding penalties against non-compliant Spanish firms.

#### Strategic Use
I would:
– Cite TI’s examples (e.g., Ukraine, Nigeria) to argue that Spain’s CSRD delay enables opaque practices, causing cross-border harms, and demand sanctions per FATF guidelines.
– Use Spanish Commercial Registry data to identify firms lacking BO disclosures, linking these to CSRD non-compliance and market distortions.
– Advocate for a public BOR in Spain via the Commission or CJEU, leveraging 5AMLD non-compliance as evidence of systemic failure.
– Monetize by securing EU or UK contracts for BOR compliance consulting, using TI’s evidence of cost savings to pitch USPs on Find a Tender.
– Enhance the claim’s value for sale by highlighting Spain’s 5AMLD and CSRD failures, appealing to funders like Harbour with expertise in transparency disputes.

#### Filings and Evidence
– **Search**: Spanish Commercial Registry for BO non-compliance; Commission’s 5AMLD implementation reports; UK BOR data for comparative transparency.
– **Prepare**: A CJEU intervention citing 5AMLD and CSRD violations; a USP for BOR compliance contracts.
– **Evidence**: BO violation records, TI case studies, and financial data showing stakeholder losses.

### Monetization Strategies

To maximize financial returns while advancing the case:
– **Sell the Claim**: Engage Fortress, Harbour, and Certum to sell the claim, emphasizing the Commission’s infringement procedure, FATF/5AMLD violations, and 320 million pounds damages. Use AlphaLit to package evidence, including BO opacity and merger data, to increase value. Retain a success fee to align with COCOO’s mission.
– **Pre-Litigation Funding**: Secure funding from Burford or Omni Bridgeway to develop evidence (e.g., BO records, financial losses), enhancing the claim’s marketability.
– **Public Contracts**: Pursue USPs for ESG and BO compliance consulting via Find a Tender, leveraging COCOO’s expertise and the SEARCHLINK Model to outbid competitors with poor compliance records.
– **Mediation Revenue**: Use the mediation agreement to secure a role as a compliance mediator, funded by Spain or industry bodies, to resolve transparency disputes.

### Limitations
I lack access to real-time Spanish Commercial Registry data, EC case records, or specific stakeholder financials, requiring direct searches. The 320 million pounds damages estimate needs substantiation. I assume COCOO has standing to represent victims, but clarification is needed. Image/chart generation for evidence visualization requires user confirmation.

### Conclusion
The three documents provide critical tools and arguments to strengthen COCOO’s case. The SEARCHLINK Model offers protocols to gather evidence of market distortions and secure contracts. The FATF and TI documents link Spain’s CSRD failure to BO opacity, supporting liability claims and sanctions. I recommend immediate searches in Spanish and EU registries, complaints to CNMC and the Commission, and outreach to funders to monetize the claim. The mediation agreement remains valid, with added emphasis on BO transparency to align with FATF and TI insights.

# Mediation Agreement

## Parties
– **COCOO (Campaign for Open Corporate Oversight)**, represented by [COCOO Representative], 23 Village Way, Beckenham, BR3 3NA, United Kingdom, contact@cocoo.uk.
– **Kingdom of Spain**, represented by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation, Paseo de la Castellana, 162, 28046 Madrid, España.
– **Mediator**: [Neutral Mediator Name], [Address], [Contact Information].

## Recitals
WHEREAS, COCOO alleges that Spain’s failure to transpose EU Directives 2021/1269 and 2022/2464 (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) has caused market distortions, competitive disadvantages, and financial losses of approximately 320 million pounds to British and European stakeholders, exacerbated by non-compliance with FATF Recommendation 24 and the 5th EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive;
WHEREAS, the European Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Spain on September 25, 2024, for non-transposition of Directive 2022/2464;
WHEREAS, both Parties seek to resolve this dispute amicably to avoid litigation, promote transparency, and address stakeholder harms;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

## 1. Purpose and Scope
The Parties agree to mediate in good faith to resolve COCOO’s claims regarding Spain’s non-transposition of the Directives and related transparency failures, including alleged market distortions, competitive disadvantages, and financial losses. The mediation covers all related claims, including potential state liability under EU law and violations of FATF and 5AMLD standards.

## 2. Mediation Process
a. The Mediator shall facilitate discussions, ensuring neutrality and confidentiality.
b. The mediation shall occur on [Date, e.g., August 15, 2025] at [Location/Virtual Platform], with additional sessions as needed.
c. Each Party shall provide a pre-mediation statement summarizing their position, evidence (e.g., financial records, BO data, regulatory filings), and proposed resolutions by [Date, e.g., August 1, 2025].
d. All communications during mediation are confidential and inadmissible in subsequent legal proceedings, except as required by EU or UK law.

## 3. Proposed Resolution Framework
a. Spain agrees to expedite transposition of Directive 2022/2464 by [Proposed Date, e.g., December 31, 2025], ensuring compliance with EU ESG and BO reporting standards per FATF and 5AMLD requirements.
b. Spain shall establish a compensation fund of [Amount, e.g., 100 million pounds] to address documented losses to stakeholders, administered by an independent body, with contributions from non-compliant firms.
c. COCOO agrees to suspend its “Sovereign Silence, Market Harm” campaign and refrain from initiating litigation during the mediation period, provided Spain demonstrates progress on transposition and BO transparency.
d. The Parties shall collaborate on a joint public statement promoting ESG and BO transparency, enhancing Spain’s international reputation and aligning with FATF and TI recommendations.

## 4. Costs and Fees
a. Each Party shall bear its own costs for mediation preparation and participation.
b. Mediator fees shall be split equally between the Parties, unless otherwise agreed.

## 5. Confidentiality
All mediation discussions, documents, and offers are confidential, except where disclosure is required by EU or UK law (e.g., FATF cooperation requirements). The Parties shall not disclose details to third parties without mutual consent.

## 6. Good Faith Commitment
The Parties commit to negotiate in good faith, providing relevant evidence, including Spanish Commercial Registry BO data, CNMC records, and stakeholder financial losses, to facilitate resolution.

## 7. Termination
Either Party may terminate mediation with written notice if no progress is made within [Timeframe, e.g., 60 days]. Termination does not prejudice either Party’s right to pursue legal remedies.

## 8. Governing Law
This Agreement is governed by EU law, with disputes arising hereunder subject to mediation or, if unresolved, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

## Signatures
For COCOO: ___________________________
[Name, Title, Date]
For Spain: ___________________________
[Name, Title, Date]
Mediator: ___________________________
[Name, Date]

---

Analysis of “HOW 2 SELL MY LITIGATION, USP AND MEDIATION PROJECTS.txt”

#### Extracted Insights
This document provides a comprehensive overview of the global legal finance market, focusing on firms that purchase litigation claims, arbitration awards, and pre-litigation opportunities, distinguishing these from traditional litigation funding. It identifies key players, their services, and the mechanisms for monetizing legal assets, which is directly relevant to COCOO’s interest in assigning or selling the case before formal legal action.

The document clarifies the distinction between standard litigation funding (non-recourse capital for legal costs with the claimant retaining ownership) and outright purchase, where the buyer acquires ownership of the claim or award, assuming risks and rewards for an upfront payment. This is critical for COCOO, as selling the claim could provide immediate liquidity to fund advocacy efforts or offset losses, aligning with the estimated 320 million pounds in damages to British stakeholders. Firms like Fortress Investment Group, Harbour Litigation Funding, Certum Group, and Bench Walk Advisors explicitly offer outright purchase of legal assets, including prospective claims, judgments, and insolvency-related claims. Fortress, with over 6.8 billion dollars committed to legal assets, and Harbour, which purchases claims for corporates and insolvency practitioners, are particularly relevant due to their global reach and capacity for large-scale transactions.

The document also addresses pre-litigation investment, noting that while purchasing abstract “legal strategies” is not standard, firms invest in early-stage claim development through funding investigations, evidence gathering, and portfolio financing. Burford Capital, Omni Bridgeway, and Certum Group are active in this space, with Certum explicitly supporting pre-filing suits and acquiring litigation-dependent assets like intellectual property. This suggests COCOO could attract funding to develop evidence (e.g., financial records proving damages) before selling the claim, enhancing its value. AlphaLit’s role as an originator, packaging claims for funders, could help COCOO structure the case for sale.

The secondary market for legal assets, exemplified by Omni Bridgeway’s Ares Management deal, demonstrates that legal claims are increasingly treated as transferable assets. This supports the feasibility of selling COCOO’s claim, though valuation and confidentiality challenges require careful structuring. Regulatory scrutiny, such as disclosure requirements in the US and UK, and ethical concerns about third-party influence, highlight the need for transparent agreements to avoid conflicts when selling the claim.

#### Relevance to the Case
The document provides a roadmap for monetizing COCOO’s claim against Spain. Selling the claim to a firm like Fortress or Harbour could yield immediate funds to support COCOO’s campaign or compensate affected stakeholders, while transferring litigation risks. The focus on pre-litigation investment suggests COCOO could secure funding to gather evidence, such as financial data from affected firms, to strengthen the case before sale. The secondary market’s existence reinforces that sophisticated investors value legal claims, increasing the likelihood of finding a buyer. However, regulatory and ethical considerations necessitate clear agreements to maintain COCOO’s public interest mandate.

#### Strategic Use
To leverage this document, I would contact Fortress (opportunities@fortress.com) and Harbour (info@harbourlf.com) to explore selling the claim, emphasizing the 320 million pounds in damages and the Commission’s infringement procedure as evidence of merit. I would also engage Certum Group (info@certumgroup.com) for pre-litigation funding to develop evidence, such as audited financial losses or expert analyses of market distortions, to enhance the claim’s value. AlphaLit could be approached to package the claim for sale, ensuring it appeals to funders. To address regulatory concerns, I would ensure sale agreements include clauses protecting COCOO’s mission and limiting buyer control over public interest aspects.

### Analysis of “MA DISCLOSURES.pdf”

#### Extracted Insights
This working paper, “A New Era of Midnight Mergers: Antitrust Risk and Investor Disclosures,” examines how investor disclosures under US securities law can alert antitrust authorities to anticompetitive mergers, leading managers to conceal deals to avoid scrutiny. It uses a regression discontinuity design to show that mandatory Item 2 reports (required for mergers valued at 10% or more of the acquirer’s assets) reduce the share of horizontal mergers by 32%, indicating firms avoid disclosing anticompetitive deals. The paper estimates 2.3 trillion dollars in undisclosed mergers from 2002 to 2016, particularly in industries like health services and business services, where small deals can significantly impact market power.

The paper highlights the tension between the SEC’s mission to protect investors through disclosures and the FTC/DOJ’s goal of preventing anticompetitive practices, noting that disclosures can trigger antitrust enforcement. It also details the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act’s premerger notification requirements, which exempt most mergers below a threshold (92 million dollars by 2025), allowing “stealth consolidation.” Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) requirements mandate reporting total cash merger values annually, enabling the authors to quantify undisclosed mergers. The paper cites industries like health services, where undisclosed mergers contribute to consolidation, and notes regulatory changes, such as the SEC’s 2020 reduction in merger disclosure requirements, which may exacerbate nondisclosure.

#### Relevance to the Case
While focused on US mergers, the paper’s findings are analogous to COCOO’s case, where Spain’s failure to transpose the CSRD has led to opaque ESG reporting, potentially enabling undisclosed mergers or practices that distort competition. The estimated 2.3 trillion dollars in undisclosed mergers underscores the scale of market distortions possible without transparency, supporting COCOO’s claim that Spain’s omission harms stakeholders by creating an uneven playing field. The paper’s emphasis on health services, where ESG factors like environmental impact are critical, aligns with COCOO’s argument that missing ESG data undermines CNMC’s ability to assess mergers. The tension between investor and consumer protection mirrors the conflict between Spain’s sovereignty and EU obligations, strengthening the argument for state liability under Francovich principles.

#### Strategic Use
The paper’s evidence of undisclosed mergers can be used to argue that Spain’s failure to enforce CSRD transparency has enabled similar “stealth” practices in the EU, causing market distortions. I would cite the 2.3 trillion dollar figure and health services example to illustrate the magnitude of harm, adapting it to the EU context by referencing CNMC’s limited ability to detect anticompetitive practices without ESG data. To gather evidence, I would search for EU merger filings (e.g., under Regulation 139/2004) and compare them with Spanish financial statements to identify undisclosed deals potentially facilitated by CSRD non-transposition. The paper’s methodology, using FASB cash flow statements, suggests searching Spanish firms’ annual reports for aggregate merger values to quantify undisclosed activity.

### Evidence and Filings to Pursue

To strengthen COCOO’s case and prepare for sale or litigation, I would focus on the following:

**Evidence Gathering**:
– **Financial Records**: Collect audited financial statements from British and EU firms affected by Spain’s CSRD non-transposition, documenting losses due to asymmetric ESG compliance costs. This substantiates the 320 million pounds damages estimate.
– **Expert Analyses**: Commission economic and environmental experts to analyze market distortions, linking Spain’s omission to specific competitive harms, such as unfair advantages for non-compliant firms.
– **Stakeholder Testimonies**: Gather affidavits from ESG-compliant firms, investors, and trade associations detailing how Spain’s regulatory gap impacted their operations or investments.
– **Spanish Merger Data**: Analyze Spanish firms’ annual reports for aggregate merger values (similar to FASB requirements) and cross-reference with EU merger notifications to identify undisclosed deals enabled by missing ESG data.

**Filings to Search**:
– **EU Merger Notifications**: Search the European Commission’s public register for merger notifications under Regulation 139/2004 involving Spanish firms, focusing on 2022–2025, to identify deals lacking ESG data.
– **Spanish Financial Reports**: Access public financial statements of major Spanish firms via the Spanish Commercial Registry (Registro Mercantil) to extract cash flow data on mergers, mirroring the paper’s FASB approach.
– **CNMC Records**: Request CNMC’s merger review and investigation records to document instances where missing ESG data hindered assessments, supporting the claim of regulatory failure.
– **Commission Infringement Documents**: Obtain the September 25, 2024, letter of formal notice and any subsequent filings from the Commission’s infringement database to reinforce Spain’s liability.

**Filings to Prepare**:
– **UK Court Claim**: Draft a claim under Francovich principles in UK courts, leveraging conflict of laws to apply EU substantive law, citing Spain’s failure and documented damages.
– **CJEU Intervention**: Prepare a submission to join the Commission’s infringement case (Article 258 TFEU) as an interested party, emphasizing market distortion impacts.
– **Sale Agreements**: Develop contracts with potential buyers (e.g., Fortress, Harbour) specifying the claim’s scope, valuation (based on 320 million pounds), and COCOO’s retained interest in public interest outcomes.

### Assigning or Selling the Case

To assign or sell the case before legal action, I would:

– **Engage Buyers**: Contact Fortress, Harbour, and Certum to pitch the claim, highlighting its merit (backed by the Commission’s infringement procedure) and potential recovery (320 million pounds). Emphasize COCOO’s campaign to attract ESG-focused investors.
– **Enhance Value**: Secure pre-litigation funding from Burford or Omni Bridgeway to develop evidence, increasing the claim’s attractiveness. Use AlphaLit to package the claim, detailing legal grounds (Francovich, Article 4(3) TEU) and evidence.
– **Structure the Sale**: Negotiate terms ensuring COCOO retains influence over public interest aspects (e.g., transparency advocacy) while transferring litigation risks. Include a success fee for COCOO if damages exceed expectations.
– **Address Regulatory Concerns**: Draft agreements with confidentiality clauses and clear delineations of control to comply with UK and EU disclosure rules, avoiding ethical conflicts.

### Draft Mediation Agreement

Below is a draft mediation agreement to resolve the dispute with Spain amicably, preserving COCOO’s public interest goals while addressing financial harms.

—

**MEDIATION AGREEMENT**

**Parties**:
– COCOO (Campaign for Open Corporate Oversight), represented by [COCOO Representative], [Address], [Contact Information] (“COCOO”).
– Kingdom of Spain, represented by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation, [Address], [Contact Information] (“Spain”).
– Mediator: [Neutral Mediator Name], [Address], [Contact Information].

**Recitals**:
WHEREAS, COCOO alleges that Spain’s failure to transpose EU Directives 2021/1269 and 2022/2464 (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) has caused market distortions and financial losses of approximately 320 million pounds to British and European stakeholders;
WHEREAS, the European Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Spain on September 25, 2024, for non-transposition of Directive 2022/2464;
WHEREAS, both Parties seek to resolve this dispute amicably to avoid litigation, promote transparency, and address stakeholder harms;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

**1. Purpose and Scope**
The Parties agree to mediate in good faith to resolve COCOO’s claims regarding Spain’s non-transposition of the Directives, including alleged market distortions, competitive disadvantages, and financial losses. The mediation covers all related claims, including potential state liability under EU law.

**2. Mediation Process**
a. The Mediator shall facilitate discussions, ensuring neutrality and confidentiality.
b. The mediation shall occur on [Date] at [Location/Virtual Platform], with additional sessions as needed.
c. Each Party shall provide a pre-mediation statement summarizing their position, evidence, and proposed resolutions by [Date].
d. All communications during mediation are confidential and inadmissible in any subsequent legal proceedings, except as required by law.

**3. Proposed Resolution Framework**
a. Spain agrees to expedite transposition of Directive 2022/2464 by [Proposed Date], ensuring compliance with EU ESG reporting standards.
b. Spain shall establish a compensation fund of [Amount, e.g., 100 million pounds] to address documented losses to stakeholders, administered by an independent body.
c. COCOO agrees to suspend its “Sovereign Silence, Market Harm” campaign and refrain from initiating litigation during the mediation period, provided Spain demonstrates progress on transposition.
d. The Parties shall collaborate on a joint public statement promoting transparency and ESG compliance, enhancing Spain’s international reputation.

**4. Costs and Fees**
a. Each Party shall bear its own costs for mediation preparation and participation.
b. Mediator fees shall be split equally between the Parties, unless otherwise agreed.

**5. Confidentiality**
All mediation discussions, documents, and offers are confidential, except where disclosure is required by EU or UK law. The Parties shall not disclose details to third parties without mutual consent.

**6. Good Faith Commitment**
The Parties commit to negotiate in good faith, providing relevant evidence, including financial records and regulatory filings, to facilitate resolution.

**7. Termination**
Either Party may terminate mediation with written notice if no progress is made within [Timeframe, e.g., 60 days]. Termination does not prejudice either Party’s right to pursue legal remedies.

**8. Governing Law**
This Agreement is governed by EU law, with disputes arising hereunder subject to mediation or, if unresolved, the jurisdiction of [UK Courts/CJEU].

**Signatures**:
For COCOO: ___________________________
[Name, Title, Date]
For Spain: ___________________________
[Name, Title, Date]
Mediator: ___________________________
[Name, Date]

—

### Clarifications Needed
I need confirmation on COCOO’s preferred mediation timeline and compensation fund amount. Additionally, I require details on specific stakeholders willing to provide evidence to strengthen the claim for sale or mediation. If COCOO prefers a specific legal forum (UK or CJEU), this should be clarified to tailor filings.

### Limitations
I lack access to real-time Spanish financial statements or EU merger filings, which would require direct searches in the Spanish Commercial Registry or Commission databases. I cannot verify the 320 million pounds damages without additional evidence. Image or chart generation (e.g., for damages visualization) requires user confirmation.

### Conclusion
The documents provide strategic options for selling the claim to firms like Fortress or Harbour, leveraging pre-litigation funding to enhance value, and using evidence of undisclosed mergers to bolster COCOO’s case. The mediation agreement offers a framework to resolve the dispute while advancing transparency. I recommend immediate outreach to funders, evidence collection, and mediation scheduling to maximize outcomes.

---

GROK INSIGHTS AND MONEY-MAKING

The letter from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) dated April 23, 2025, confirms that Spain transposed Directive 2021/1269 in November 2023, but failed to transpose Directive 2022/2464 (CSRD). A formal infringement procedure was initiated against Spain, with a letter of formal notice sent on September 25, 2024. This acknowledgment strengthens COCOO’s claim regarding CSRD non-transposition, as the Commission is actively pursuing enforcement. However, the Commission notes that neither directive grants new investigative powers to Spain’s National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC), suggesting that the alleged undermining of CNMC’s effectiveness may lack legal grounding, as its existing competition law powers remain unaffected. This is a potential weakness, as it limits the argument that Spain’s omission directly impaired CNMC’s ability to enforce EU competition law.

The technical annexes addressed to the Spanish Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry for Ecological Transition, and CNMC provide a comprehensive legal, economic, and regulatory framework. They argue that Spain’s failure to transpose the CSRD has led to competitive disadvantages for ESG-compliant firms, particularly British ones, estimating losses of 320 million pounds between 2022 and 2025. The annexes cite jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and UK courts, invoking doctrines like state liability for non-transposition, situational monopoly, and secondary rights arising from legitimate expectations. These references bolster the case by grounding it in established legal principles, though the estimated damages require substantiation through concrete evidence, such as financial records or investor testimonies, which are not provided in the documents.

The annex to the Ministry of Economic Affairs highlights the ministry’s primary responsibility for transposing the directives, framing the omission as a breach of international obligations that cannot be excused by sovereignty. It also provides examples of how the lack of ESG reporting undermines CNMC’s ability to assess mergers or investigate abuses of dominance, potentially vitiating past decisions. This argument is compelling but hinges on proving that ESG data is indispensable for competition assessments, which may face scrutiny given DG COMP’s stance on CNMC’s existing powers.

The annex to the Ministry for Ecological Transition emphasizes environmental impacts, arguing that the lack of ESG reporting hampers Spain’s climate goals and international reputation. This aligns with COCOO’s public interest mandate but is less directly tied to competition law, potentially diluting the case’s focus unless linked to market distortions, such as unfair advantages for environmentally regressive firms.

The annex to the CNMC criticizes its inaction, alleging breaches of duties under the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) guidelines, such as failure to act expeditiously or cooperate internationally. This comparison to CMA standards may be misplaced, as CNMC operates under Spanish and EU law, not UK frameworks. This weakens the argument unless COCOO can demonstrate that CNMC’s inaction violates EU competition principles, such as those in Regulation 1/2003.

The letters to DG COMP, CNMC, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, and the Ministry of the Presidency outline COCOO’s campaign, “Sovereign Silence, Market Harm,” and request collaboration, investigations, and reparative mechanisms. They assert that Spain’s omission distorts the internal market, violates Article 102 TFEU (abuse of dominance), and harms stakeholders through opaque practices and asymmetric compliance costs. The letters are proactive but risk overreaching by suggesting Article 102 applies to state omissions, as this provision typically targets undertakings, not Member States. A stronger legal basis might be Article 4(3) TEU (duty of sincere cooperation) or state liability under Francovich principles.

### Strengths of the Case

The case benefits from the Commission’s ongoing infringement procedure, which validates the claim of non-transposition of the CSRD. The estimated 320 million pounds in damages to British stakeholders provides a tangible harm, appealing to UK courts or arbitration panels. The campaign’s public interest framing enhances COCOO’s credibility, potentially attracting support from ESG-focused investors, NGOs, and regulators. Legal arguments rooted in CJEU and UK jurisprudence, such as state liability and secondary rights, offer a solid foundation for claims against Spain.

### Weaknesses and Limitations

The claim that CNMC’s effectiveness was undermined is weakened by DG COMP’s clarification that the directives do not confer new powers to CNMC. The reliance on CMA guidelines to critique CNMC is legally tenuous, as these are not binding in Spain. The damages estimate lacks detailed evidence, risking dismissal unless substantiated. The application of Article 102 TFEU to state omissions is unconventional and may not withstand scrutiny, requiring a pivot to more applicable EU law principles. Finally, the documents do not clarify whether COCOO has standing to represent affected parties, which could complicate collective or public interest claims.

### Strategic Plan to Advance the Case and Generate Revenue

As COCOO’s solicitor, my goal is to win the case while aligning with COCOO’s mission and generating financial returns. Here’s the approach:

First, I would consolidate the legal strategy by focusing on state liability under EU law, specifically the Francovich doctrine, which allows damages claims against Member States for non-transposition of directives causing harm to individuals or entities. This is stronger than the Article 102 TFEU argument, as it directly addresses Spain’s failure to transpose the CSRD and the resulting losses to British stakeholders. I would gather evidence, such as financial statements, investment decisions impacted by ESG opacity, and testimonies from affected firms, to substantiate the 320 million pounds in damages. This could involve partnering with UK-based ESG funds or trade associations to collect data.

Second, I would pursue a dual-track approach: litigation and advocacy. For litigation, I would explore filing a claim in UK courts, leveraging the doctrine of conflict of laws outlined in the annex, which allows UK procedural law to govern while applying EU substantive law. This bypasses Spanish procedural barriers, such as short limitation periods. Alternatively, I would consider an action before the CJEU if the Commission’s infringement procedure escalates to a referral under Article 258 TFEU, potentially joining as an interested party to argue market distortion impacts. For advocacy, I would amplify the “Sovereign Silence, Market Harm” campaign through media, webinars, and stakeholder roundtables, positioning COCOO as a leader in ESG and competition advocacy. This could attract funding from ESG-compliant firms or foundations supporting transparency.

To generate revenue, I would monetize COCOO’s expertise and campaign momentum. One avenue is offering consultancy services to affected firms, helping them quantify losses and prepare claims against Spain, with COCOO taking a percentage of recovered damages as a success fee. Another is developing a subscription-based ESG compliance toolkit for businesses navigating uneven EU regulatory landscapes, leveraging insights from the case. Additionally, I would seek grants from environmental or competition-focused NGOs, such as the European Climate Foundation, to fund the campaign and legal efforts. To maximize visibility and attract clients, I would publish a white paper summarizing the case’s findings, distributed to investors and regulators, with a paid premium version offering detailed legal strategies.

### Clarifications Needed

I need clarification on COCOO’s standing to represent affected parties, as the documents mention collective locus standi but lack specifics on authorized claimants. Additionally, I require access to evidence supporting the 320 million pounds damages estimate, such as financial data or case studies. Finally, I need confirmation on whether COCOO prefers a UK or EU legal forum, as this impacts the procedural strategy.

### Limitations

I lack access to real-time financial data or specific victim testimonies, which are critical for proving damages. My analysis is based solely on the provided documents, and any external evidence (e.g., from X or web searches) would require user authorization. Additionally, I cannot generate images or charts without user confirmation, though I could create a canvas panel for visualizing damages if requested.

### Next Steps

I would draft a formal claim outline based on Francovich liability, targeting UK courts for jurisdictional advantages. Concurrently, I would launch a stakeholder engagement plan, inviting affected firms to join the campaign and contribute evidence. To fund these efforts, I would pitch consultancy services to ESG investors and apply for relevant grants. I await clarification on the above points to refine the strategy.

This approach balances legal rigor, public interest advocacy, and revenue generation, positioning COCOO to win the case while advancing its mission.

 

---

FOREIGN DIMENSIONS

---

POTENTIAL CAUSES OF ACTION

---

PRODUCTS & SERVICES – PS