Third-Party Intervention

I. Admission of BDT Investments Inc. as Third-Party Co-Litigant

On March 21, 2024, the Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance issued Order, admitting BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party co-litigant (tercero coadyuvante) supporting Lisa, S.A. in the commercial summary proceeding brought by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. and Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A. Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes accredited her capacity as BDT's special judicial representative through Protocolization Testimony No. 17, authorized on June 15, 2023, and the court verified the documentation in compliance with law. The admission rested on Articles 549 and 553 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. BDT's standing derived from its position as assignee of Lisa's rights under a settlement approved in Panama enforcement proceeding Exp. 31638-12 (Order No. 898).

The intervention formalized the direct participation of the assignee of Lisa's rights in the defense of the proceeding, strengthening Lisa's procedural position by incorporating an entity with a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.

II. Administradora de Restaurantes' Successive Challenges

On April 2, 2024, the court issued Order, denying the motion for revocation (revocatoria) that Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. had filed against BDT's admission. Administradora raised four objections: an alleged notarial conflict of interest under Article 77 of the Notarial Code, the absence of exequátur for the Panamanian documentation under Articles 344 through 346 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the extraterritorial invalidity of the Panamanian agreement under Article 211 of the Code of Private International Law (Bustamante Code), and a purported disguised substitution of Lisa as defendant. The court rejected each argument. It found BDT's representation properly accredited through Protocolization Testimony No. 17, authorized on June 15, 2023 by Notary Paola Arana Estrada and registered with the Electronic Registry of Powers of Attorney. The alleged notarial conflict was inapplicable because the protocolization of a foreign document does not constitute an act in favor of the notary or her relatives. The Panamanian documentation met the conditions of Article 548, and BDT had been admitted solely as a co-litigant, without replacing Lisa as defendant. The denial confirmed that Administradora's objections lacked procedural support.

Administradora next filed a motion for amplification against its Order of April 2, 2024, arguing that the court had failed to address the efficacy of the Panamanian documentation, its extraterritorial invalidity, and the allegedly contradictory nature of BDT's intervention. On April 26, 2024, the court issued Order, denying the motion. Under Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the analysis of BDT's documents will be conducted when the court issues the resolution determining the admissibility of the third-party intervention; the points raised were substantive matters, not omissions curable through amplification under Articles 596 and 597. The denial left BDT's admission firm and exhausted Administradora's immediate procedural avenues for blocking BDT's participation in the proceeding.