Damages Lawsuit by Reproductores Avícolas and El Llano

Whether Lisa’s preliminary exceptions (incompetence, defective claim, lack of standing, prescription, caducity, and lack of fulfillment of conditions to exercise the right to claim) should bar the damages lawsuit.

The court rejected the preliminary exceptions of incompetence, defective claim, and lack of standing. However, it upheld the exception of “failure to meet the condition,” finding that Lisa’s exclusion as a shareholder was not yet final, which rendered the damages claim premature. Consequently, the proceedings were terminated without analyzing the exceptions of prescription and caducity.

The damages claim by El Llano against Lisa was dismissed as premature and the case was archived. El Llano was ordered to pay costs.

Reproductores Avícolas, S.A., acting on behalf of El Llano, S.A., appealed the 2020 order arguing that the damages action did not depend on Lisa’s exclusion being final. Lisa, S.A. also appealed, challenging the findings on incompetence, defective claim, and lack of standing.

The Court of Appeals found that the damages action was filed prematurely, as Lisa’s exclusion as a shareholder was still being litigated and not yet final. The appellate judges held that under Articles 228 and 229 of the Guatemalan Commercial Code, a damages claim can only proceed once the exclusion is definitively resolved. Accordingly, the Chamber dismissed both appeals, confirmed the 2020 ruling in full, and declined to impose costs due to reciprocal defeat.

The appeal was dismissed and the 2020 ruling was fully confirmed; no appellate costs were imposed.