Lisa, S.A. reiterates dividend return and contempt petitions before the Eleventh Circuit Court, rebutting defense counsel's claim in parallel criminal proceedings that Order No. 2277-2018 is not yet final.

Non-Finality Claim in Criminal Proceedings

The filing's new element is factual. At a recent hearing before a Guarantees Court, held in connection with the criminal embezzlement case Lisa, S.A. brought against Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez for his conduct as judicial depositary, defense counsel asserted before the magistrates that the order directing the return of funds to Lisa, S.A. was not yet final, a contention the defense advanced in its Opposition Brief of January 22, 2025. Lisa, S.A. characterizes this as an attempt to mislead the criminal court about the procedural status of the civil case.

Finality Chain of Order No. 2277-2018

The filing rebuts the criminal defense's claim by reconstructing the complete finality chain of Order 2277-2018. Villamorey, S.A. appealed the order, but the First Superior Court declined jurisdiction in its Appeal Ruling of July 2019, holding that the resolution was not among the numerus clausus of appealable orders. Villamorey, S.A. then filed a constitutional amparo action, which the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice denied unanimously in its Amparo 1022-19 of June 2020. With all avenues of challenge exhausted, Order No. 2277-2018 became definitively final. The criminal defense's contention that the order is not yet executory has no basis in the civil record.

Procedural Context

The filing recapitulates the predicates set out in its Motion of February 10 and its Motion of February 11, 2025: the extinction of the $894,718.00 judgment through the set-off ordered by Order No. 2277-2018, the lifting of the BDT Investments, Inc. attachment communicated via Official Notice No. 29 of January 3, 2025, and the absence of any precautionary measure in force against Lisa, S.A. It reiterates Bosch Gutiérrez's obligation, as judicial depositary constituted under Article 536(4) of the Judicial Code, to render a full accounting of sixteen years of custody and return the retained sums.

"Le reiteramos nuestra solicitud de girar las comunicaciones de rigor tanto a la sociedad VILLAMOREY, S.A., como al señor JUAN LUIS BOSCH GUTIERREZ, quienes están obligados a acatar la instrucción de devolver a LISA, S.A, las sumas de dinero cuya devolución por este despacho fue ordenada desde que el Auto No. 2277 de 05 de diciembre de 2018 quedó ejecutoriado" (Page 3)

Relief Sought

• That the court issue formal communications to Villamorey, S.A. and Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez confirming the executory status of Order No. 2277-2018 and the obligation to return the retained funds
• That the court compel the judicial depositary's appearance through available legal mechanisms
• That, should the depositary refuse to appear, the court declare him in contempt

Legal Basis

• Article 536(4) of the Judicial Code — establishes the constitution of a judicial deposit when a third party holds assets belonging to the defendant, and the legal responsibilities of the depositary so constituted

Signatories

• Lcda. María Luisa Villarreal Palacios, Counsel for Lisa, S.A.