HEARINGS
March 15, 2011
Fellow
Investors:
The preliminary hearing phase of our case was
begun as scheduled on Feb. 28th. A second
session was held three days later. The date of
the next meeting has not yet been established.
Our attorney had requested in the “demanda” that
some documents (notably the reports of SUGEF,
the sentence of Oswaldo, et cetera) be made
available by the State to prove certain
allegations. This was challenged by the
Procurador (the defense attorney) and the Judge
ruled in our favor. Consequently, the hearings
were suspended while the documents in question
are assembled, copied, and reviewed by the
respective lawyers. The delay in the hearings
is estimated to be about two to three weeks.
The presiding judge at these
preliminary hearings was appointed
by the Poder Judicial to resolve some of the
legal issues presented by this case before
sending a report with his observations and
opinion to the Tribunal for trial. The purpose
is to expedite the judicial process. All
debate is made orally at these hearings, and the
judge rules immediately.
Most of the time thus far has been devoted to
the defense attorney’s attempts to have our case
rejected. The Judge overruled the proposition
that the date of submission of our case exceeded
the statute of limitations (called a prescripton).
The “prescription” for such a case is just one
year -- but that year began with the last legal
action taken by the State during the course of
this case -- which happens to be the date that
our Recurso de Amparo was filed. That is to
say, the Recurso kept the case open.
The assertion by the defense (Procurador) that
our case was without foundation was denied by
the Judge.
We left the last hearing with a feeling of
satisfaction that our case was well represented
and received – except for one huge matter:
The Judge ruled that only the five
persons who actually submitted the lawsuit (the
Demandantes, 5 board members) could be included
in the case. The co-demandantes (the balance of
investors who joined the suit) were excluded for
largely technical reasons. The power of
attorney that they signed was deemed to be
inadequate for full representation in Court.
Those persons residing outside of Costa Rica
needed authentication by a CR consul in the
country of residence. The Court also required
certification by a licensed CPA of all documents
supplied by investors in support of their
monetary claims.
Needless to say, we were stunned by this turn of
events because we had been led to believe that
none of these measures would be necessary. We
have since been exploring alternatives and
debating amongst ourselves the wisest course to
follow. The options are:
1. We can still attempt to collect the
information required by the Court to include
everyone in the on-going lawsuit. This would
essentially paralyze the case for months – if
not years.
2. We could proceed with this case as is, and if
we (five board members) are successful, we could
use any financial reward to fund another legal
initiative on behalf of all co-demandantes (also
referred to as co-adjuvantes). If we should
win, it would be reasonable to assume that the
result of the second case would prove to be the
same. If anyone would choose not to
participate, we would return the amount already
contributed. Should we lose, we would discard
the idea of further litigation since there would
be no point in it.
After much soul-searching, we have decided in
favor of option #2. The current case will serve
well as a test case, and provide a more timely
conclusion for all of us.
A clarification:
Recent mail received from investors indicates
that some of you still believe that the goal of
our lawsuit is the recovery of your investment
with LEV. It therefore bears repeating that
this action has nothing to do with Enrique
Villalobos, and any indemnification that may
come from the CR government does not alter
Enrique’s obligation to pay what he owes you.
Grupo UCCR