BDT Investments Inc. as Third-Party Intervenor
Reproductores Avícolas, S.A.
C. 01044-2017-00206
Summary
This is an ordinary civil lawsuit filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against Lisa, S.A. The case centers on the alleged prescription of Lisa’s right to claim dividends that were not requested within five years. During 2024, the court issued rulings on BDT Investments Inc.’s attempt to intervene and on procedural motions filed by Reproductores Avícolas.
Decisions
Whether BDT Investments Inc. could intervene as third-party co-defendant in support of Lisa.
The court recognized BDT’s legal representation but denied the attempted intervention (tercería coadyuvante) because judgment had already been issued in the case.
BDT was acknowledged but could not formally join the process at that stage.
Reproductores Avícolas filed a request for extension (ampliación) against the 13 Feb 2024 ruling, arguing that Lisa lost her right to dividends through prescription and that BDT lacked shareholder status to intervene.
The court denied the request, holding that its prior ruling had already addressed the issues raised and that no omissions existed under Article 596 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code.
The February 2024 ruling remained firm; Reproductores Avícolas’ ampliación was rejected.
Conclusion
The trial court recognized BDT Investments Inc.’s representation but barred its intervention because judgment had already been issued. Reproductores Avícolas attempted to reopen arguments through an ampliación but failed. These rulings underscore the procedural limits in post-judgment interventions and confirm that the case remains focused on the question of prescription of Lisa’s dividend rights.