Claims Over Dividend Prescription by Avícola Villalobos
Avícola Villalobos, S.A.
C. 01046-2018-00217
Summary
This is a commercial summary lawsuit. Avícola Villalobos, S.A. sued Lisa, S.A., seeking a declaration that its obligation to pay dividends decreed in the shareholders’ meeting of 24 May 2012 had prescribed after five years. Avícola argued that Lisa had failed to collect within the legal period, extinguishing the obligation. Lisa opposed, maintaining its shareholder rights and dividend entitlement.
Decisions
Whether the dividends decreed in May 2012 had prescribed by May 2017.
The court dismissed Avícola Villalobos’ lawsuit, finding insufficient proof of when the dividends became legally collectible. The court held that Avícola failed to establish a clear start date for prescription and thus could not extinguish Lisa’s rights. Avícola was ordered to pay costs.
Lisa’s dividend rights remained valid; the prescription claim was rejected.
Avícola Villalobos filed an amparo challenging procedural decisions of the trial court that admitted BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party co-defendant supporting Lisa. Avícola alleged violations of due process and defense rights.
The Court of Appeals denied the amparo, holding that the trial judge acted within the law and that admitting BDT as coadyuvante did not violate Avícola’s constitutional rights. Costs and a fine were imposed on Avícola’s attorney.
The amparo was rejected, leaving the trial court’s decisions intact. Lisa’s defense — supported by BDT — remained in place.
Conclusion
Avícola Villalobos attempted to extinguish Lisa’s right to dividends by alleging prescription of the 2012 distribution. The trial court rejected the claim, ruling that Avícola failed to prove the time-bar. Later, Avícola’s amparo against the admission of BDT Investments as co-defendant was also denied. These outcomes confirm Lisa’s dividend rights remain valid and protected.