Claims Over Dividend Prescription by Administradora de Restaurantes

Lisa raised multiple preliminary defenses, including incompetence, lack of standing, defective complaint, and expiration not properly established. The central dispute was whether La Perla/Administradora could extinguish Lisa’s dividend rights through a prescription action.

The court upheld Lisa’s defense of a defective complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to attach the full shareholders’ meeting act, lacked clarity in its pleadings, and ignored the arbitration clause in its own bylaws.

The lawsuit was rejected in limine; Administradora was ordered to pay costs.

Administradora appealed, arguing that the trial court misapplied procedural rules and imposed unnecessary requirements. Lisa defended the judgment, emphasizing that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged prescription and did not provide the necessary documentation.

The Court of Appeals confirmed the trial court’s ruling, rejecting the appeal. The court held that Administradora’s demand lacked clarity, omitted essential documents, and contradicted its own arguments.

The dismissal of the claim stood, and Administradora was ordered to pay appellate costs.

Administradora filed a cassation appeal, arguing that the appellate decision was unlawful. Lisa opposed, emphasizing that the case lacked definitiveness and that its rights as shareholder were being improperly curtailed.

The Supreme Court rejected the cassation outright, finding the appeal inadmissible because the contested decision was not subject to cassation and lacked objective grounds.

The case was archived, leaving intact the rejection of Administradora’s lawsuit.