Lisa & BDT Demand Bosch Render Accounts as Judicial Custodian

I. Admission of the Accounting Demand

Appeal Ruling

The First Superior Tribunal of the First Judicial District reversed the Sixteenth Civil Court's refusal to admit the summary accounting demand filed by Lisa, S.A. against Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez, and ordered its admission. The trial court had rejected the demand through Order No. 1623 of September 27, 2021, reasoning that the acts by which Bosch was constituted as judicial depositary occurred in a separate proceeding outside its jurisdiction. The Superior Tribunal held that a judicial accounting proceeding is autonomous and independent from the ordinary proceeding in which the judicial deposit was constituted, removing the procedural barrier that had prevented Lisa from demanding transparency over more than $44,910,912.00 in retained dividends. Lisa argued that the ordinary proceeding before the Eleventh Civil Court had concluded by final judgment, making it impossible to raise incidental claims there, and that the accounting constituted a personal obligation of the judicial depositary under Article 1379 of the Judicial Code.

This ruling represented the first validation of Lisa's standing to demand the accounting, a point that would become central in later stages of the litigation.

Order 12

The Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court admitted the special summary accounting demand filed by Lisa, S.A. against Juan Luis Bosch Gutierrez, implementing the First Superior Tribunal's ruling of September 30, 2022. The order identified Lisa, registered at Folio 117512 of the commercial section of the Public Registry, as the plaintiff, confirmed compliance with Article 665 of the Judicial Code, and directed service of the demand on the defendant with a five-day response period.

Order 712

The court exercised its corrective authority under Article 999 of the Judicial Code to remedy an omission in Order No. 12 of January 5, 2023. The original admission order had set a five-day response period appropriate for ordinary proceedings but failed to establish the specific deadline for the defendant to appear and render an accounting. The correction replaced that provision with a ten (10) business day period for Bosch to present himself before the court and render accounts in accordance with the parameters set forth in the complaint, consistent with Articles 1379 and 1380 of the Judicial Code governing the special summary accounting proceeding.

II. Precautionary Measures

Order E-127

The Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court admitted the asset attachment (secuestro) filed by Lisa, S.A. against Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez, complementing the principal accounting action with a precautionary measure to secure the defendant's assets. The court set a bond of $5,000,000.00 that Lisa was required to post under Article 570 of the Judicial Code. The magnitude of this bond reflects the scale of assets at issue: dividends retained under judicial deposit since 2008 totaling more than $44.9 million.

III. International Service and Default

Letters Rogatory 29

The Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court issued Letters Rogatory No. 29, requesting international judicial assistance from Guatemala to serve Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez with notice of the admitted accounting demand. The letters rogatory stated that more than thirteen years had elapsed since Bosch placed at the court's disposal the sums retained from Lisa as declared but unpaid dividends, and that he had never rendered any reports on the disposition of those funds. The request identified Bosch's domicile at 5 Avenida 15-45, Zona 10, Centro Empresarial Torre 1, Guatemala City, and attached authenticated copies of the complaint and admission orders along with the forms required by the Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory.

Notification

The Judiciary's International Protocol and Relations Office authorized Lisa's counsel, Lcda. Maria Luisa Villarreal Palacios, to retrieve the service documents from Panama's Ministry of Foreign Affairs for diplomatic dispatch to Guatemala. The private-party release mechanism was intended to expedite a process that would otherwise have depended entirely on institutional channels.

Motion

After several months without confirmation of service, Lisa, S.A. filed a motion requesting court authorization to obtain from the Office of International Legal Affairs of the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs information on which Guatemalan authority had received the letter rogatory and the status of the notification. The motion underscored the logistical difficulties of locating and serving Bosch in Guatemala.

Edict 246

Having exhausted ordinary notification mechanisms, the court issued Summoning Edict No. 246, published for five consecutive days in La Estrella de Panama from July 8 through 12, 2024. The edict granted Bosch twenty days from the last publication to appear through counsel, with express warning that failure to appear would result in the appointment of an absent-defendant attorney under Article 1012 of the Judicial Code. The resort to service by edict marked the transition to a subsidiary notification mechanism after personal service proved unviable.

Order

After the edict deadline expired without appearance, the court appointed Lcdo. Miguel Ruiz as absent-defendant attorney for Bosch, setting litigation expenses at $1,500.00. The appointment concluded a sequence of more than one year of attempts to personally serve Bosch (letters rogatory, diplomatic dispatch, tracking motion, edict), allowing the proceeding to advance.

An absent-defendant attorney was appointed following Bosch Gutiérrez's prolonged failure to appear.

IV. BDT's Intervention and Trial Court Judgment

Order 18

The Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court admitted BDT Investment Inc. as an interested third party (litisconsorte), finding that BDT had satisfied the procedural requirements for joining the litigation. BDT, as assignee of Lisa's litigation rights through the settlement approved by the Twelfth Circuit Civil Court (Order No. 898 of April 12, 2022), sought to ensure representation of the substantive interest in the accounting for more than $44.9 million in retained dividends.

Three weeks later, however, Judgment No. 71 of January 31, 2025 declared ex officio that Lisa lacked active standing and Bosch lacked passive standing, denied the accounting demand, revoked BDT's admission as litisconsorte, and condemned Lisa to pay $40,000.00 in costs. The contradiction between BDT's admission and its immediate exclusion became a central axis of the subsequent appeals.

V. Appellate Proceedings

Appeal

Lisa, S.A. appealed Judgment No. 71 before the First Superior Tribunal, arguing that its active standing had been validated by that same Tribunal in 2022 when it reversed the denial of the accounting claim, that at the time of filing (August 26, 2021) the judicial approval of the assignment to BDT was not yet final, that the trial court denied BDT's intervention in contradictory fashion despite the defendant's own acknowledgment of the assignment, and that the $40,000.00 cost sanction lacked any basis in bad faith or abusive conduct.

Appeal

BDT Investments Inc. filed a complementary appeal attacking three aspects of the judgment: the denial of its intervention as litisconsorte despite Order No. 898 approving the irrevocable assignment of rights, the ex officio declaration of Lisa's lack of standing without following the legally mandated procedure, and the rejection of Bosch's obligation to render accounts as judicial depositary. BDT highlighted the central contradiction that the judgment itself acknowledged the assignment yet denied the assignee's participation.

Edict

The Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court granted suspensive effect to both appeals, staying all enforcement of Judgment No. 71 and transmitting the case file to the First Superior Tribunal. The cost award, the standing determinations, and the denial of the accounting claim remained unenforceable pending appellate resolution.

Appeal Ruling

The First Superior Tribunal ruled on the appeals, modifying Judgment No. 71 solely to exonerate Lisa, S.A. from the $40,000.00 cost sanction, and upheld everything else. The Tribunal concluded that: (1) Lisa lacked active standing because the assignment of rights to BDT displaced her legal interest, and (2) Bosch lacked passive standing because he acted as Villamorey, S.A.'s representative rather than in his personal capacity. On costs, the Tribunal recognized that Lisa acted in good faith in attempting to enforce its rights in a complex legal context.

The cost exoneration represented partial vindication of Lisa's position, but the confirmation of the standing-based dismissal compelled escalation to the Supreme Court.

Appeal Ruling

The First Superior Tribunal denied the petition by Galindo, Arias y Lopez, counsel for Bosch, to modify the cost order and reimpose the sanction on Lisa. The Tribunal reiterated that Lisa pursued its claim with documentation that, while insufficient, was not entirely without foundation, and that it cannot be said that Lisa acted recklessly, abusively, or in bad faith. This second confirmation of Lisa's good-faith conduct strengthened its position heading into the cassation appeal.

VI. Cassation Before the Supreme Court

Motion

Lisa, S.A. formally announced a cassation appeal on the merits against the July 9, 2025 ruling. The announcement is the procedural prerequisite for accessing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and submitting the appellate determinations on standing and BDT's intervention for review.

Cassation Appeal

Lisa, S.A. filed the substantive cassation brief before the First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, invoking two grounds under Article 1169 of the Judicial Code. The first ground alleges error of law in the assessment of evidence: the Tribunal incorrectly evaluated Order No. 898, which approved the assignment of rights, without considering that Lisa filed its demand on August 26, 2021, while the judicial approval of the assignment did not occur until April 12, 2022, meaning Lisa held full active standing at the time of filing. The second ground alleges direct violation by omission of a substantive legal norm: despite expressly acknowledging the existence of the Liquidation Agreement, the Tribunal failed to rule on BDT's request for intervention as litisconsorte as required by Articles 612 and 835 of the Judicial Code. Lisa invokes Articles 32 of the National Constitution (due process), 199 of the Judicial Code (jurisdictional function), and 972 (congruence of judgments).

If the cassation succeeds, the Supreme Court would order the continuation of the summary accounting proceeding and recognition of Lisa's or BDT's standing to demand the accounting.

Edict 1537

The First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court placed the cassation appeal on the docket, establishing a six-day admissibility briefing period: the first three days for Bosch to argue against admissibility, and the following three days for Lisa to reply. This resolution formally activates the admissibility phase and constitutes the Supreme Court's first action in the case.