Exp. 01162-2017-00791 · Summary Action for Extinctive Prescription
On April 19, 2024, the Twelfth Civil Court of First Instance denied the motion for revocation filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against BDT Investments Inc.'s admission as third-party intervenor supporting Lisa, S.A., confirming BDT's participation in the proceeding.
Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. filed a summary proceeding for extinctive prescription against Lisa, S.A. before the Twelfth Civil Court of First Instance in Guatemala, seeking to extinguish dividend rights. In 2024, BDT Investments Inc. requested admission as a third-party intervenor supporting Lisa, based on a Transaction Agreement through which Lisa assigned BDT rights and obligations related to the Avícola Group. The court admitted BDT as co-defendant, and when Reproductores Avícolas challenged the admission through a motion for revocation, the court denied the challenge, confirming BDT's participation in the proceeding.
The Twelfth Civil Court of First Instance admitted BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party intervenor (tercero coadyuvante) supporting Lisa, S.A. in the summary proceeding for extinctive prescription filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. BDT's intervention was grounded in a Transaction Agreement between BDT and Lisa, through which Lisa assigned and transferred to BDT the rights and obligations arising from proceedings related to the Avícola Group. The court recognized the appearing attorney's capacity as special judicial agent with representation, accepted the evidence offered in BDT's filing, and directed BDT to take the proceeding in its current state.
BDT's admission strengthens Lisa's defensive position by incorporating into the proceeding the assignee of Lisa's rights, which holds a direct interest in the outcome of the dividend prescription litigation.
Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. filed a motion for revocation against the order admitting BDT, arguing that BDT lacked a "certain and own interest" in the matter, that the Transaction Agreement did not encompass this proceeding, that the assignment of rights for $19,184,680.00 should have triggered Value Added Tax payment, and that deficiencies existed in the notarial protocolization.
The court denied the motion. The central basis rested on Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which provides that third-party interventions in non-execution proceedings shall be resolved together with the principal matter in the final judgment. The court determined that BDT was admitted only as a co-defendant, without substituting Lisa, and that the definitive determination of whether BDT held a certain and own interest was deferred to the judgment on the merits. The objections regarding tax compliance and protocolization were deemed premature.
"Aunque la recurrente hace señalamientos respecto del impago de impuestos, es claro que será hasta dictar sentencia y junto al asunto principal, que este Juzgado haga su pronunciamiento sobre la existencia de un interés propio y cierto de la entidad BDT INVESTMENTS INC dentro del presente juicio sumario y declarar la procedencia o no de la tercería instada."
The confirmation of BDT as co-defendant secures its participation in the remaining stages of the proceeding, including the pending evidentiary phase and the eventual judgment on the prescription of dividends owed to Lisa.
The summary proceeding for extinctive prescription remains in its evidentiary phase. The definitive determination of BDT Investments Inc.'s third-party intervention will be resolved in the final judgment together with the merits of the principal matter.