This report provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the litigation between Lisa, S.A., a direct 25% shareholder of the Avícola Villalobos Group, and companies within the Group.

Over more than two decades, the Avícola Villalobos Group has pursued a systematic campaign of litigation designed to exclude Lisa from its shareholder position, extinguish its rights to dividends, and undermine its ability to exercise basic corporate rights. This campaign has produced over 100 lawsuits, filed across multiple jurisdictions and judicial levels in Guatemala, advancing nearly identical claims under different legal theories.

The litigation has concentrated around four principal categories of lawsuits:

1. Damages and Losses
Claims seeking to hold Lisa liable for alleged reputational and financial harm caused by its shareholder litigation.

2. Prescription of Dividend Rights
Attempts to declare Lisa’s dividend rights extinguished under the doctrine of prescripción extintiva.

3. Abuse of Right
Allegations that Lisa’s vigorous litigation strategy itself constituted an abuse of legal rights.

4. Shareholder Exclusions
Direct efforts to expel Lisa from the Avícola Villalobos Group through shareholder resolutions and subsequent judicial confirmation.

This report consolidates detailed legal analyses of each category, integrating case-by-case outcomes, procedural histories, and substantive judicial reasoning. It draws on official case records (expedientes), including proceedings before the Courts of First Instance, the Appellate Courts, the Supreme Court of Justice, and the Constitutional Court.

The findings demonstrate that Lisa has achieved overwhelming success across all four litigation fronts. With only a limited number of cases pending, Guatemala’s judiciary has repeatedly validated Lisa’s defensive arguments and established binding precedent that safeguards minority shareholder rights.

The sections that follow provide an in-depth review of each litigation category (Sections 1-4), followed by an overall analysis and conclusion. Detailed case tables, including all expediente numbers, courts, plaintiffs, and outcomes, are provided in the annex for reference.

The Daños y Perjuicios litigation campaign against Lisa, S.A. was a coordinated effort by companies within the Avícola Villalobos Group to hold Lisa liable for alleged economic and reputational harm. The plaintiffs argued that Lisa’s shareholder actions, including lawsuits for dividends, amparos for access to information, and other defenses, caused them commercial losses.

These claims were strategically deployed as part of a broader plan to marginalize and eventually exclude Lisa as a shareholder without compensation. However, Lisa consistently prevailed. Courts at all levels, from first instance tribunals to the Constitutional Court, rejected these claims as either premature, unproven, prescribed, procedurally defective, or contrary to fundamental shareholder rights.

The damages campaign was extensive. At least 15 separate Daños y Perjuicios lawsuits were filed by different Villalobos entities across multiple jurisdictions. Each company acted as an individual plaintiff, filing near-identical claims that forced Lisa to defend itself in fragmented litigation.

The litigation spanned:

• Juzgados de Primera Instancia Civil (multiple districts)
• Cortes de Apelaciones de lo Civil
• Cámara Civil de la Corte Suprema de Justicia
• Corte de Constitucionalidad

Most cases were dismissed well before trial, while a few advanced through appeal and cassation. A complete listing of all expedientes is provided in Annex A.

Lisa’s success resulted from a multi-pronged legal strategy:

A central defense was that damages claims could not be heard until Lisa’s exclusion as a shareholder was final (firme). Courts consistently upheld this principle.

• Pollo Rey, S.A. Exp. 01043-2012-00238
  Dismissed in first instance as premature. The Court of Appeals confirmed. The Constitutional Court denied amparo, making the dismissal final.
• El Llano, S.A. (Exp. 01042-2012-00139)
  Courts ruled the damages claim could not proceed because Lisa’s exclusion had not yet become final.
• Los Abetos, S.A. (Exp. 01043-2012-00193)
  Similar reasoning led to dismissal in both first and second instance.
• Sistemas y Equipos, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2012-00206)
  First instance court ruled the claim was premature; BDT Investments was later admitted as a co-litigant in Lisa’s defense.
• Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. (Exp. 01046-2012-00201)
  Appeal court confirmed the exclusion was not final and damages claims were premature.

This line of defense allowed Lisa to defeat multiple suits without engaging in long evidentiary battles.

Even when courts examined the merits, plaintiffs could not prove actual harm or causation.

• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01045-2012-00210): Courts found no proof of damages. The Supreme Court rejected the cassation. The evidence consisted of accounting certifications that did not establish harm, and records of foreign litigation that only showed proceedings existed and not that Lisa caused losses.
• Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2012-00178): Dismissed at first and second instance due to lack of proof. Courts held that litigation or reputational impacts do not constitute actionable damages. Cassation appeal remains pending.

Under Civil Code Article 1673, damages claims must be filed within one year.

• Inversiones Empresariales, S.A. (Exp. 01041-2012-00224): Dismissed definitively because the alleged acts had occurred more than a decade earlier, far beyond the one-year limit.
• Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. and Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2012-00279): Claim dismissed as both defective and prescribed. The Court of Appeals confirmed dismissal.

This defense provided a procedural end to otherwise costly litigation.

Several cases were rejected for formal deficiencies:

• Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. y Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2012-00279): Filed under ordinary civil procedure rather than the mandatory summary track required by corporate bylaws.
• Pollo Rey, S.A. (Exp. 01043-2012-00238): Cassation filing dismissed for technical defects.
• Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2012-00178): Plaintiff’s cassation submissions contained procedural errors; some filings were inadmissible.

Lisa consistently argued that its lawsuits, amparos, and other actions were lawful and constitutionally protected.

• Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2012-00178): Court rulings upheld that Lisa’s actions were legitimate shareholder remedies and could not be recharacterized as malicious or abusive. Pending cassation ruling.

In some proceedings, Lisa took the offensive.

• Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2011-01079): Lisa filed a counterclaim alleging abusive litigation. The court admitted the reconvención after rejecting the plaintiff’s preliminary objections. This shifted the case from purely defensive to offensive posture.

The consistent dismissal of Daños y Perjuicios lawsuits has produced a coherent set of judicial precedents:

• Prematurity Doctrine: Damages cannot be claimed until shareholder exclusion is final.
• Strict Evidentiary Standards: Concrete and quantifiable damages must be proven, with a direct causal nexus.
• Prescription Enforcement: The one-year statute of limitations under Civil Code Article 1673 is absolute.
• Right to Defend Shareholder Interests: Filing lawsuits and amparos is a protected legal right, not actionable harm.

These principles, repeatedly upheld by appellate courts, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court, now form binding precedent in Guatemalan corporate law.

The Daños y Perjuicios campaign against Lisa, S.A. has collapsed. Out of more than a dozen cases, all but one have been dismissed, most with finality, including Constitutional Court confirmation. The only pending matter is Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2012-00178), currently in cassation.

Lisa’s defensive strategy of prematurity, evidentiary failure, prescription, procedural defects, legitimate rights, and counterclaims, was systematically validated.

The result is a clear body of precedent that protects Lisa and other minority shareholders from damages suits weaponized as retaliation.

Beginning around 2017, numerous companies within the Avícola Villalobos Group filed lawsuits across Guatemala seeking judicial declarations that Lisa, S.A.’s dividend rights had been extinguished under prescripción extintiva.

The plaintiffs argued that dividends declared years earlier were no longer collectible due to the statutory time limit of 5 years. In effect, this campaign sought to eliminate Lisa’s right to receive past dividends altogether, thereby expropriating a central element of its shareholder rights.

Lisa responded with a robust defense, achieving victories in virtually every case and securing binding precedent from Guatemala’s highest courts.

This litigation campaign was unprecedented in size:

• At least 62 lawsuits were filed by multiple Villalobos companies.
• Key plaintiffs included Avícola Las Margaritas, Administradora de Restaurantes, Inversiones Torre Nova, Inversiones Empresariales, Reproductores Avícolas, Cerro Colorado, Distribuidora Avícola del Norte, Escobio, Pollo Rey, San José el Recuerdo, Industria Avícola del Sur, Compañía Alimenticia de Centroamérica, Importadora de Alimentos de Guatemala, and Villamorey, S.A.
• Each company filed suits in separate courts, with nearly identical claims.

The strategy was designed to overwhelm Lisa by dispersing the litigation across jurisdictions and increasing procedural burden.

Lisa relied on a two-tiered defense strategy: procedural objections to block cases at inception and substantive arguments to dismantle claims that survived.

a) Improper Procedural Venue (Vía Procesal Incorrecta)

Under Article 1039 of the Guatemalan Code of Commerce, disputes over dividends must be resolved in summary commercial proceedings (juicio sumario), not ordinary civil suits (juicio ordinario).

• Inversiones Empresariales, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2017-00185): Dismissed for improper procedural track.
• Inversiones Empresariales, S.A. and San Juan, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2019-01226): Dismissed on the same grounds.
• Escobio, S.A. (Exps. 01161-2018-01246 and 01164-2017-00228) – Both dismissed because the ordinary civil venue was improper.
• Sistemas y Equipos, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2017-00184): Court rejected the lawsuit for improper venue.

These dismissals were later confirmed by appellate courts and, in some cases, by the Constitutional Court.

b) Mandatory Arbitration Clauses

Lisa invoked arbitration clauses in the corporate charters of several plaintiff companies. Courts upheld these clauses and dismissed lawsuits for lack of jurisdiction.

• Inversiones Torre Nova, S.A. (Exps. 01049-2022-00243 and 01161-2018-00566): Both lawsuits were remitted to arbitration.
• Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. and Distribuidora Avícola del Norte, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2017-00194): Case rejected; parties ordered to arbitration.
• Pollo Rey, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2018-01206): Court dismissed case and sent parties to arbitration.

The Constitutional Court (Exp. 01161-2018-00566) later confirmed that such clauses are enforceable.

c) Defective Pleadings (Demanda Defectuosa)

Numerous claims were rejected for failing to meet minimum procedural requirements.

• Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. and Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2018-01334): Dismissed for failure to provide complete shareholder meeting minutes.
• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2018-01353): Dismissed in both first instance and appeal for defective pleading.
• Cerro Colorado, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2018-01005): Dismissed for failure to attach required documentation.
• San José el Recuerdo, S.A. (Exp. 01161-2017-00201): Dismissed for the same procedural deficiencies. Defective claim.

The Supreme Court and Constitutional Court confirmed that such defects were fatal.

a) Lack of Exigibility

Lisa argued that the statute of limitations could not begin because the dividends had not become exigible. Shareholder assemblies approved dividends in principle but delegated payment details to boards, which never set payment terms.

• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. and Importadora de Alimentos de Guatemala, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2022-01188): Auditor’s report confirmed no payment terms were set, validating Lisa’s position.
• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01046-2022-00986) – First instance rejected the claim on this basis; cassation pending.

b) Suspension of Prescription Due to Judicial Embargoes

Lisa argued that the prescription was suspended because its dividend rights were embargoed, often by the plaintiffs themselves, making payment legally impossible.

• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. and Compañía Alimenticia de Centroamérica, S.A. (Exp. 01164-2022-01230): Court found plaintiff created the impediment and could not benefit from it.
• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2022-01188): Courts accepted suspension due to embargoes.

c) Dividend Rights as Property

Lisa argued that once declared, dividends become property rights of the shareholder, not mere corporate obligations. Property rights are not subject to extinctive prescription.

• Industria Avícola del Sur, S.A. (Exp. 01042-2017-00059): First instance accepted this argument; appeal pending.
• Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. (Exp. 01042-2017-01051): Same reasoning; claim dismissed.

The lawsuit filed by Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. and Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2018-00313) became the leading precedent:

• First Instance (Feb. 28, 2020, Juzgado Octavo) – Claim rejected.
• Court of Appeals (Dec. 1, 2020, Sala Quinta) – Appeal dismissed.
• Supreme Court (Aug. 11, 2021, Cámara Civil) – Refused to admit cassation.
• Constitutional Court (Sept. 13, 2022) – Declared amparo “notoriously improper” and fined the plaintiff's lawyer.

This case conclusively established that Lisa’s dividends had not prescribed.

• Inversiones Torre Nova (Exp. 01161-2018-00566) – Constitutional Court confirmed arbitration clauses are binding.
• Cerro Colorado (Exp. 01046-2020-00057) – Constitutional Court confirmed dividend disputes must be in summary proceedings.
• Administradora de Restaurantes (Exp. 01161-2018-01334) – Supreme Court refusal of cassation confirmed defective pleadings justify dismissal.

The prescription litigation campaign was intended to extinguish Lisa’s dividend rights, but it has failed across the board. Courts at all levels have rejected the claims, and the Constitutional Court has imposed fines for abusive filings.

The binding precedent of Exp. 01044-2018-00313 (Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A.) and related rulings now bar future attempts to relitigate prescription.

Lisa’s dividends remain valid, enforceable property rights. Any new lawsuits face insurmountable jurisprudential barriers, making Lisa’s legal position exceptionally strong.

Several companies within the Avícola Villalobos Group initiated lawsuits against Lisa, S.A. under the doctrine of Abuso de Derecho (Abuse of Right).

The plaintiffs alleged that Lisa’s extensive legal actions, including shareholder lawsuits, amparos before the Constitutional Court, and even criminal complaints in Guatemala, Panama, and the United States, were malicious and excessive, designed to harm the companies financially and reputationally.

Lisa, in contrast, maintained that its conduct was the legitimate and constitutionally protected exercise of shareholder rights. The courts consistently agreed with Lisa in concluded cases, rejecting the abuse claims due to lack of legal standing, failure to prove bad faith, and absence of actual damages.

At least three separate Abuso de Derecho lawsuits were filed against Lisa:

• Alimentos para Animales, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2021-01490): Case Concluded; dismissed at all judicial levels, including cassation.
• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2022-00409): Case Concluded; dismissed in first instance and confirmed on appeal.
• Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01048-2024-00297): Case Ongoing; procedural defenses rejected, case proceeding to evidentiary phase.

Lisa’s defense relied on five core arguments, consistently validated by the courts.

Lisa argued that filing lawsuits, constitutional challenges, and criminal complaints was a lawful exercise of shareholder rights.

• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2022-00409) – Courts recognized Lisa’s multiple lawsuits, filed in Guatemala, Panama, and the U.S., as legitimate shareholder remedies.
• Alimentos para Animales, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2021-01490) – Courts held that Lisa’s filing of criminal complaints was protected under the right to denounce potential wrongdoing.

This defense was consistently accepted, affirming that vigorous litigation is not inherently abusive.

Plaintiffs often lacked standing because they were not direct parties to the underlying proceedings they claimed were abusive.

• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2022-00409) – Court ruled plaintiff attempted to claim rights of third parties, and thus lacked standing.
• Alimentos para Animales, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2021-01490) – Court confirmed plaintiff was not a party to the criminal complaint and therefore had no standing to sue for abuse.

This reasoning eliminated entire claims before they could reach evidentiary stages.

Under Guatemalan law, three elements are required: bad faith (mala fe), causal nexus, and patrimonial damage.

In every concluded case, courts found plaintiffs failed on all three:

• Bad Faith: No evidence Lisa acted with malice or intent to harm.
• Causal Nexus: Plaintiffs could not link Lisa’s actions to direct harm.
• Patrimonial Impact: No proof of financial losses tied to Lisa’s conduct.

Example: Avícola Las Margaritas (Exp. 01044-2022-00409) – Appellate court explicitly held the plaintiff failed to prove “direct or immediate damage.”

Beyond missing elements of abuse, plaintiffs failed to provide concrete, quantifiable evidence of damages.

• Alimentos para Animales, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2021-01490) – Courts held “no real damage linked to said actions was proven.”
• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2022-00409) – Court confirmed vague allegations of harm were insufficient.

Some complaints were rejected as defective (demandas defectuosas)

• Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01048-2024-00297) – Lisa raised procedural objections, arguing the claim lacked a coherent legal basis. Although rejected, courts clarified that Lisa’s substantive defenses will be fully considered at trial.

This ensures Lisa will have full opportunity to demonstrate lack of abuse, causation, and damages during the evidentiary phase.

• Alimentos para Animales, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2021-01490) – Dismissed at first instance, appeal, and cassation; final and binding.
• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2022-00409) – Dismissed in first instance and on appeal; ruling final.

Both dismissals affirmed that Lisa’s conduct was legitimate, lawful, and constitutionally protected.

• Inversiones Torre Nova, S.A. (Exp. 1165-2022-00208) – Procedural stage; unclear status due to lack of amparo notification.
• Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (Exp. 01048-2024-00297) – Now in the evidentiary phase. Precedent from concluded cases creates a heavy burden for the plaintiff to prove elements that other claimants failed to establish.

The Abuso de Derecho rulings confirm:

• Exercising shareholder rights does not constitute abuse without compelling evidence of bad faith and harm.
• Plaintiffs must show direct standing and quantifiable damages.
• Guatemalan courts will dismiss claims based on vague allegations or indirect harm.

The Abuso de Derecho campaign has been decisively rejected in all concluded cases. Lisa prevailed by showing its actions were legitimate exercises of shareholder rights and by highlighting plaintiffs’ lack of standing, absence of evidence, and failure to prove damages.

Ongoing litigation remains, particularly Avícola Villalobos (Exp. 01048-2024-00297), but Lisa’s defensive posture is significantly strengthened by existing jurisprudence.

The precedents now firmly establish that minority shareholders cannot be punished for vigorously defending their rights.

The exclusion lawsuits were the most direct attack on Lisa, S.A.’s rights as a direcet 25% shareholder of the Avícola Villalobos Group.

Beginning in 2011, multiple companies convened shareholder assemblies to vote on Lisa’s exclusion. These resolutions alleged misconduct, fraud, or financial harm caused by Lisa. The Group then defended the resolutions in court.

Lisa responded by filing juicios de oposición (opposition lawsuits) to challenge the validity of each exclusion. Over more than a decade, these cases advanced through every level of the Guatemalan judiciary, including the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court.

The results overwhelmingly favored Lisa: courts consistently found the exclusions procedurally defective, factually unsubstantiated, or unconstitutional.

Exclusion proceedings were filed by numerous Villalobos companies, including:

• Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2011-1081)
• Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios, S.A. (Exp. 01162-2011-01095)
• Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. (Exp. 01043-2011-00112)
• Distribuidora Avícola del Norte, S.A. (Exp. 01163-2011-01084)
• Escobio, S.A. (Exp. 01044-2011-00108)
• Industria Avícola del Sur, S.A. (Exp. 01041-2011-00110)
• Sistemas y Equipos, S.A. (Exp. 01042-2011-00105)
• San José el Recuerdo, S.A. (Exp. 01046-2011-00119)
• El Llano, S.A. (Exp. 01048-2011-00111)
• Pollo Rey, S.A. (Exp. 01047-2011-00112)

Some cases remain pending; others, like San José el Recuerdo, resulted in exclusion. But the landmark case of Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2011-1081) produced definitive rulings nullifying the exclusion and restoring Lisa’s shareholder rights.

A full listing of exclusion proceedings is provided in the Annex.

Lisa’s defense combined procedural, evidentiary, and constitutional arguments.

1. Untimely Exclusions

Article 230 of the Guatemalan Commercial Code requires exclusions to be executed within three months of learning of the alleged cause.

Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (Exp. 01165-2011-1081) – Court ruled on May 19, 2023 that exclusion was null because alleged acts occurred well before the three-month window. The Appellate Court upheld it on May 29, 2024. The Supreme Court dismissed cassation on April 3, 2025, rendering the nullity final.

2. Improper Corporate Procedure

Exclusions must be approved in extraordinary shareholder assemblies, not ordinary ones.

Courts found that many exclusions were approved in ordinary assemblies, violating quorum and procedural safeguards.

3. Lack of Financial Reserves

Law requires companies excluding a shareholder to hold sufficient reserves to repurchase shares.

Plaintiffs failed to prove reserves existed; this argument succeeded in several cases, including Avícola Las Margaritas (Exp. 01165-2011-1081).

1. No Proof of Misconduct

Courts consistently ruled that allegations of fraud and financial harm were unsupported.

Avícola Las Margaritas (Exp. 01165-2011-1081) – Court found accusations were not substantiated by evidence.

2. Acts Attributed to Third Parties

Courts identified that alleged harmful acts were committed by unrelated parties, not Lisa.

In the Margaritas ruling, Juzgado Segundo (May 19, 2023) explicitly held: “los actos alegados como dolosos correspondían a terceros y no a la empresa demandante.”

3. Irrelevant or Extraneous Evidence

Plaintiffs attempted to rely on foreign lawsuits and unrelated financial records.

Appellate Court in Margaritas (May 29, 2024) rejected this evidence as irrelevant and non-probative.

1. Opposition to Caducidad Dismissals

Plaintiffs often argued Lisa’s opposition lawsuits should be dismissed for inactivity (caducidad).

Reproductores Avícolas (Exp. 01043-2011-00112) – Courts held delays were due to judicial administrative processes, not Lisa. The Constitutional Court confirmed this in final decision on Sept. 11, 2024.

2. Opposition to Improper Case Consolidation

Villalobos' companies sought to consolidate multiple exclusions into one proceeding.

Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios (Exp. 01162-2011-01095) – Lisa argued this violated fairness. The Constitutional Court on Oct. 17, 2018 ruled that each exclusion must be adjudicated separately.

May 19, 2023 (First Instance) – Exclusion declared null.

May 29, 2024 (Court of Appeals) – Decision confirmed.

April 3, 2025 (Supreme Court) – Cassation dismissed for defective framing.

Result: Lisa’s exclusion was definitively annulled and shareholder rights restored.

Reproductores Avícolas (Exp. 01043-2011-00112) – Courts held caducidad cannot be imposed for judicial delays; The Constitutional Court confirmed.

Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios (Exp. 01162-2011-01095) – The Constitutional Court ruled exclusions must be litigated separately, not consolidated.

Distribuidora Avícola del Norte (Exp. 01163-2011-01084) – Still pending; cassation inadmissible, merits unresolved.

San José el Recuerdo (Exp. 01046-2011-00119) – Lisa was excluded; adverse ruling stands.

Industria Avícola del Sur (Exp. 01041-2011-00110) – Still active; pending procedural determinations.

Lisa has successfully defeated the majority of exclusion proceedings. The Avícola Las Margaritas case (Exp. 01165-2011-1081) stands as a landmark, conclusively nullifying Lisa’s exclusion and setting binding precedent.

Courts have established critical principles:

Strict 3-month deadline for exclusions under Article 230 of the Commercial Code.

Exclusions must be approved in extraordinary assemblies with proper procedure.

Sufficient reserves must exist to fund exclusions.

Judicial protections ensure exclusions cannot be consolidated or dismissed for delays outside the litigant’s control.

While some cases remain pending and San José el Recuerdo resulted in an adverse ruling, the weight of precedent strongly supports Lisa’s continued shareholder rights across the Group.

The Avícola Villalobos Group launched an unprecedented, multi-front litigation campaign designed to overwhelm and ultimately extinguish Lisa, S.A.’s shareholder rights. This campaign spanned four principal categories of litigation:

• More than a dozen lawsuits alleged that Lisa’s shareholder litigation caused financial and reputational harm.
• Courts consistently dismissed these claims as premature (Exps. 01043-2012-00238, 01042-2012-00139, 01043-2012-00193), unproven (Exps. 01045-2012-00210, 01163-2012-00178), time-barred (Exp. 01041-2012-00224, 01044-2012-00279), or procedurally defective.
• The Constitutional Court confirmed dismissals in cases such as Pollo Rey (Exp. 01043-2012-00238).
• Result: Near-total collapse of the damages campaign; only one case (Avícola Villalobos, Exp. 01163-2012-00178) remains pending in cassation.

• At least 62 lawsuits sought to extinguish Lisa’s dividend rights via extinctive prescription.
• Courts dismissed dozens of suits for procedural defects (Exp. 01161-2018-01334, 01161-2018-01353, 01161-2018-01005), improper venue (Exp. 01044-2017-00185, 01163-2017-00184), or jurisdictional objections (arbitration clauses in Exps. 01049-2022-00243, 01161-2018-00566, 01161-2017-00194).

Substantively, courts upheld Lisa’s defenses that:

Dividend obligations never became exigible because boards failed to set payment terms (Exp. 01163-2022-01188).

Judicial embargoes suspended prescription periods (Exp. 01164-2022-01230).

Declared dividends are property rights not subject to prescription (Exps. 01042-2017-00059, 01042-2017-01051).

• The Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios case (Exp. 01044-2018-00313) produced definitive precedent, rejected at all judicial levels up to the Constitutional Court.
• Result: Lisa’s dividend rights remain intact and enforceable, with binding precedent blocking further prescription suits.

• Several lawsuits alleged Lisa’s vigorous litigation campaign itself was abusive.
• Courts dismissed claims in Alimentos para Animales (Exp. 01165-2021-01490) and Avícola Las Margaritas (Exp. 01044-2022-00409), holding Lisa’s actions were legitimate shareholder rights.
• Courts repeatedly found plaintiffs lacked standing (Exps. 01044-2022-00409, 01165-2021-01490) and failed to prove bad faith, causation, or damages.
• One case remains pending (Avícola Villalobos, Exp. 01048-2024-00297), but existing precedent makes success unlikely.
• Result: Abuso de Derecho claims have been conclusively discredited as a strategy.

• Multiple exclusion resolutions were challenged by Lisa through juicios de oposición.
• Landmark victory: Avícola Las Margaritas (Exp. 01165-2011-1081) — exclusion nullified at all levels, including Supreme Court rejection of cassation in 2025.
• Courts ruled exclusions untimely (beyond 3-month limit), procedurally invalid (ordinary assemblies instead of extraordinary), unsupported by reserves, and factually baseless.
• Procedural protections were confirmed in Reproductores Avícolas (Exp. 01043-2011-00112) (caducidad rejected) and Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios (Exp. 01162-2011-01095) (exclusions must be litigated separately).
• While one adverse ruling occurred in San José el Recuerdo (Exp. 01046-2011-00119), the weight of precedent supports Lisa.
• Result: Exclusion strategy largely defeated; Lisa remains a shareholder in key Villalobos companies with rights reaffirmed.

The Avícola Villalobos Group’s litigation strategy, comprising more than 100 lawsuits filed across Guatemala, has failed.

• Daños y Perjuicios suits have been dismissed at every level, leaving only one pending case in cassation.
• Prescriptions of Dividends suits were comprehensively dismantled, culminating in binding precedent from the Constitutional Court that protects Lisa’s dividend rights.
• Abuso de Derecho claims collapsed under strict judicial scrutiny; courts upheld Lisa’s right to vigorously defend its shareholder interests.
• Exclusion proceedings largely failed, with the landmark Margaritas case definitively annulling Lisa’s exclusion and affirming core shareholder protections in Guatemalan corporate law.

Judicial Precedent Established:

• The prematurity doctrine for damages claims.
• Strict evidentiary standards for damages and abuse allegations.
• Enforcement of the one-year prescripción limit and recognition of dividend rights as property.
• Full judicial enforcement of procedural guarantees (e.g., extraordinary assemblies, time limits, arbitration clauses, due process protections).
• Affirmation that vigorous litigation is a legitimate shareholder right, not an abuse.

Lisa’s Legal Position Today:

• Lisa remains a lawful 25% shareholder of the Avícola Villalobos Group.
• Its dividend rights are enforceable and cannot be extinguished through prescription.
• Judicial precedent now provides a durable legal shield against future attempts to exclude Lisa or retaliate against it through damages or abuse claims.
• Out of more than 100 lawsuits filed, only a handful remain active, with precedent making success for the plaintiffs highly unlikely.