Claims Over Dividend Prescription by Avícola Las Margaritas

Whether the claimed dividends (June 10, 2014 assembly) were time-barred by prescription.

The court dismissed the summary prescripción claim against Lisa (sin lugar) and upheld Lisa’s defenses, including lack of exigibility, lack of free disposition, third-party measures, and interruption of prescription; costs against the losing party.

Lisa prevailed at trial; the prescripción demand was denied.

Appeal by Avícola Las Margaritas challenging the trial judgment that dismissed its claim and accepted multiple defenses.

The Court partially granted Avícola’s appeal, but still kept the claim dismissed. It (i) again declared “sin lugar” the prescripción suit, (ii) annulled several Lisa defenses (lack of exigibility, lack of free disposition, third-party measures, interruption), (iii) kept Lisa’s negative answer and “falta de veracidad” exception, and (iv) waived costs in the instance.

The dismissal of the claim stood, while Lisa’s defense grounds were narrowed on appeal.

Avícola filed a cassation appeal; Lisa submits written arguments (alegato para la vista) urging the Supreme Court to reject cassation and confirm the appellate ruling.

Lisa argues, in substance, that: (a) the dividends lacked immediate legal exigibility, (b) there was no free disposition due to precautionary measures/embargoes, and (c) prescription was interrupted by judicial/extrajudicial acts; therefore prescripción cannot be declared, and cassation should be dismissed with costs.

No Supreme Court ruling yet; cassation remains pending.