Appeal

On March 13, 2025, BDT Investments Inc. filed its appellate brief challenging Judgment No. 71 of January 31, 2025. BDT argues that the lower court committed multiple legal and procedural errors by denying Lisa, S.A.’s standing, refusing BDT’s intervention, and disregarding the First Superior Tribunal’s prior 2022 ruling confirming Lisa’s legitimacy to demand an accounting. BDT emphasizes that the lower court explicitly acknowledged the existence of a valid assignment of litigation rights from Lisa to BDT, recognized that Bosch himself admitted this assignment in his response, and nonetheless failed to admit BDT as a litisconsorte, contradicting Articles 602, 603, and 612 of the Judicial Code.

BDT also challenges the lower court’s conclusion that Bosch lacks passive standing, noting that he personally acted as judicial depositary of Lisa’s withheld dividends and therefore falls squarely within Article 1379, which obligates anyone who has performed the role of depositary to render accounts. The appeal argues that the judge ignored mandatory procedures under Articles 1380–1381, failed to rule correctly on Bosch’s objections, and misapplied Article 747 by not notifying BDT as the alleged true interested party. BDT requests full reversal of the judgment and recognition of its right to intervene and pursue Bosch’s overdue accounting obligations.