Between September and November 2025, Lisa and BDT advanced multiple high-value civil and procedural actions in Panama and Guatemala. The period featured a $60 million corporate-rights lawsuit, a landmark appellate victory confirming that dividend rights cannot prescribe, and several successful defenses against nullity, damages, and expiration attempts. These steps reinforced the legality of the BDT–Lisa transaction and strengthened ongoing shareholder-rights enforcement.
On September 30, 2025, BDT filed a corrected oral lawsuit in the Second Civil Circuit Court (Case No. 78084-25) seeking judicial enforcement of Villamorey’s obligation to issue and register 33.33% of its shares in BDT’s name. The filing relies on the already-recognized transfer of rights under Panama’s Order No. 898 (April 12, 2022), and demands formal issuance of share certificates.
This lawsuit quantifies the value of the dispute at $60 million, marking a major offensive step to monetize the asset transfer from Lisa to BDT after Villamorey’s continued refusal to register the shares.
Seeks issuance and registration of BDT share certificates
On September 8, 2025, the Ninth Pluripersonal Civil Court dismissed Avícola Las Margaritas’ nullity action challenging the protocolization in Guatemala of Panama’s Order No. 898, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and that only Lisa had legitimate interest to contest the instrument.
Upholds exception for lack of standing
On November 5, 2025, Lisa filed a negative response to Villamorey’s similar nullity lawsuit. Lisa argued that the plaintiffs lack legal interest, that any alleged defects would constitute relative (not absolute) nullity, and that the protocolization complied fully with Articles 39 of the Judicial Branch Law and 63–64 of the Notarial Code. These filings reinforce the validity of the BDT–Lisa transaction in Guatemala.
Opposes nullity of protocolized Panamanian order
On October 24, 2025, the Third Civil and Commercial Appeals Court confirmed that dividends cannot prescribe while the shareholder remains part of the company (Case No. 01042-2017-01051). This ruling preserves Lisa’s rights to dividends declared between 2001–2011 and orders the opposing party to pay appellate costs.
Confirms denial of dividend prescription
In related prescription cases, Lisa filed appellate briefs on October 17 and 28, 2025, arguing that the dividends were never made payable, that judicial embargoes prevent prescription, and, in the Villamorey case, that Guatemalan courts lack jurisdiction over disputes between two Panamanian corporations governed by Panamanian law.
Challenges jurisdiction and prescription claim
Opposes dividend prescription claim
On October 24, 2025, the Appeals Court upheld the dismissal of a damages lawsuit filed by Reproductores Avícolas, confirming that damages claims cannot proceed while the underlying exclusion dispute remains unresolved.
Confirms denial of dividend prescription
Separately, in Inversiones Torre Nova S.A. v. Lisa (October 29, 2025), the court validated Lisa’s counterclaim for damages arising from abusive litigation tactics. Lisa requested confirmation of the lower-court order upholding the counterclaim.
Requests confirmation of order upholding counterclaim
Finally, in Case File 01048-2008-9829, Lisa defeated an attempt to declare case expiration by demonstrating that any delay was due to court backlog and that the file was already under judicial resolution.
Opposes dismissal for inactivity
On October 20, 2025, Lisa filed a Cassation Appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice challenging the dismissal of its lawsuit seeking a full accounting from Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez. Lisa argues that it had standing at the time of filing, because the transfer of rights to BDT had not yet been finalized.
A favorable ruling would reactivate a major recovery action central to enforcing substantial sums retained by Bosch. The case remains procedurally clean, supported by a September 12, 2025 clarification order correcting clerical issues.
Lisa challenges appellate ruling upholding dismissal
Across both jurisdictions, Lisa and BDT continue to press forward using civil, corporate, and appellate mechanisms to secure shareholder rights, enforce the validity of the BDT–Lisa transaction, and recover significant value. The period delivered key structural wins—particularly the non-prescription of dividends, the preservation of protocolization, and the launch of a $60 million share-registration case—reinforcing a disciplined multi-front enforcement strategy.