Order

Case Background

This ordinary civil lawsuit was filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against Lisa, S.A. and BDT Investments Inc., seeking a declaration that Lisa's right to collect dividends had prescribed due to the passage of more than five years without being claimed. On March 21, 2024, the same court recognized BDT Investments Inc.'s legal representation but denied its attempted third-party intervention through <doc id="gua-01044-2017-00206-2024-03-21-a" />, because judgment had already been issued in the proceeding. Reproductores Avícolas subsequently filed the present motion for amplification against the February 13, 2024 order, which had resolved a prior revocation motion.

Plaintiff's Claims

Reproductores Avícolas requested that the court rule on BDT Investments Inc.'s lack of standing to act in the proceeding as a shareholder of Lisa, S.A. In essence, the plaintiff argued that BDT had not proven ownership of Lisa's share certificates, that the accompanying settlement agreement conferred only certain rights to profits and pending payments but not corporate rights, and that BDT therefore lacked procedural capacity to exercise shareholder rights.

Reproductores' claim reflects a pattern consistent with abuse of the legal system to prevent the exercise of Lisa, S.A.'s shareholder rights. Reproductores pursues a prescription action on dividends that it, as part of the Avícola Villalobos Group, has contributed to withholding, while simultaneously challenging the standing of BDT, the entity that acquired rights over the profits owed to Lisa, to participate in the proceeding.

Court's Analysis

The judge determined that Reproductores Avícolas' arguments were without merit. The court reasoned that the February 13, 2024 order, which resolved a revocation motion filed by the same plaintiff, had already set forth in its third recital the grounds for revoking the January 25, 2024 ruling and issuing the corresponding replacement order. Under Article 596 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code, amplification is available only when the court has omitted to resolve a point at issue in the proceeding, a circumstance the court found did not exist in this case.

The opposing party was granted a two-day hearing period through incidental proceedings, which elapsed without a response.

Ruling

• The motion for amplification filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against the revocation order of February 13, 2024 was denied

Legal Basis

• Articles 12 and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala — guarantees of due process and right of defense invoked by both parties
• Article 596 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — governs the motion for amplification, available only when the court has omitted to resolve a point at issue
• Article 597 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — establishes the procedure for the amplification motion (two-day hearing)
• Articles 140 to 143 of the Judiciary Act — rules governing judicial resolutions

Signatories

• Licda. Gloria Aracely Rosales Reynoso de Vásquez, Judge
• Lilian Rosana Balcárcel García, Clerk