Summary Accounting Lawsuit (Bosch)

Case File No. 83573-21 centers on Lisa, S.A.’s effort to compel a judicial accounting from Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez for the funds he and Villamorey, S.A. have held under judicial deposit since 2008—funds consisting of Lisa’s unpaid dividends arising from its shareholding in Villamorey. The case builds directly on judicial findings made in related proceedings, including the Superior Tribunal’s 2022 ruling confirming Lisa’s standing to demand an accounting and reaffirming that Bosch acted as judicial depositary of more than $44.9 million in retained dividends.

The record shows that in November 2008, Bosch—acting on behalf of Villamorey, S.A.—formally notified the Eleventh Civil Court that the embargoed dividends belonging to Lisa were “at the disposal of the Court at any moment,” thereby acknowledging judicial custody and assuming all statutory duties of a depositary. These funds were retained for years without any accounting, despite Lisa’s repeated requests and despite clear judicial recognition of the obligation to account for property held under deposit.

In 2021, Lisa initiated this Special Summary Accounting Proceeding to ensure transparency regarding the management of the withheld dividends. Although the trial court initially denied admission of the action, the First Superior Tribunal reversed that ruling in 2022, ordered the case admitted, and emphasized Lisa’s right to obtain a full accounting. Once admitted, the proceeding advanced through motions, correction orders, international service attempts in Guatemala, edicts, and ultimately the appointment of an absent-defendant attorney when Bosch refused to appear.

The litigation later became entangled with the separate issue of Lisa’s assignment of litigation rights to BDT Investments Inc. After Lisa and BDT sought to intervene jointly—Lisa as original holder and BDT as transferee—the trial court denied both standing and intervention. In July 2025, the First Superior Tribunal confirmed the dismissal, holding that (1) Lisa lacked standing because of the prior assignment, and (2) Bosch lacked passive standing because he acted as Villamorey’s representative rather than personally. The Tribunal nevertheless removed the $40,000 cost sanction that the trial court had imposed on Lisa, recognizing that Lisa acted in good faith to enforce its rights.

Lisa has since filed a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the appellate ruling contains errors of law, misapplied the evidence, and failed to address BDT’s intervention request as required by Articles 612 and 835 of the Judicial Code. That challenge remains pending.

The underlying factual issue remains unchanged: Villamorey and Bosch held Lisa’s dividends under judicial deposit since 2008 and have never rendered the required accounting, despite acknowledging the deposit and despite repeated judicial directives affirming the obligation to account. The legal question now before the Supreme Court is whether the Special Summary Accounting Proceeding should continue, and whether Lisa and/or BDT must be recognized as the proper party to demand that accounting.

The judicial proceedings in Case File No. 83573-21 therefore remain active. The core unresolved issue is the absence of any accounting from Bosch for funds held under judicial authority for more than sixteen years, despite formal recognition of the deposit and repeated attempts by Lisa and BDT to obtain judicial oversight and restitution.