Cassation: Defense Plea Against Cassation in Dividend Prescription Case

This document presents Lisa, S.A.’s legal argument for the Supreme Court's civil chamber hearing on July 4, 2025, in response to the cassation appeal by Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. The appellant seeks to reverse prior rulings that denied the prescription of a 2014 dividend payment obligation. Lisa, S.A. contends that the obligation in question was not immediately enforceable because the shareholder assembly explicitly delegated to the company’s administration the power to determine when and how the dividends would be paid. Therefore, the obligation was conditional, and the prescriptive period could not begin until those conditions were met.

The Supreme Court is asked to reject the cassation for lack of legal basis. Lisa, S.A. argues that the lower court correctly interpreted the law, particularly Article 675 of the Commercial Code, which applies only to obligations without specific terms. In this case, the administrative deferral rendered the obligation a suspensive condition, governed instead by Articles 1269 and 1592 of the Civil Code. The defense further argues that Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. seeks to misuse the courts by requesting that judges retroactively construct the timeline for enforceability based on insufficient and imprecise claims.