Claims Over Dividend Prescription by Inversiones Torre Nova

Lisa, S.A. raised exceptions of incompetence, defective complaint, lack of standing, failure of condition, and failure of term.

The court upheld the exception of incompetence, holding that the bylaws of Inversiones Torre Nova required disputes between the company and shareholders (including dividend disputes) to be resolved through arbitration. It abstained from ruling on the other exceptions.

The ordinary extinctive-prescription action was halted; the parties were directed to arbitration.

Inversiones Torre Nova appealed the December 3, 2019 ruling.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, confirming that arbitration was mandatory under the company’s bylaws and that the trial court correctly declared itself incompetent.

The order diverting the case to arbitration remained in force.

Inversiones Torre Nova filed a constitutional amparo against the appellate ruling, arguing violation of judicial protection and equality.

The Supreme Court denied amparo, finding that the lower courts acted lawfully in enforcing the arbitration clause and that there was no violation of constitutional rights.

The arbitration order was upheld.

Inversiones Torre Nova appealed the denial of amparo.

The Constitutional Court upheld the denial of the amparo, concluding that the dispute was commercial in nature; that Article 1039 of the Commercial Code provides that such cases should proceed via summary proceedings or arbitration; and that Torre Nova’s corporate charter expressly required arbitration.

The extinctive-prescription claim was definitively barred from ordinary courts; the case must be pursued in arbitration.