Sue because of the illegal agreement of the Bank Administration

The Third Panel of the Supreme Court of Justice will enter into the resolution of the lawsuit on illegality and nullity filed against contract no. 002-2023 approved by the board directive of the Supervisory Board of Banks, which affect the interests of shareholders of banking entities.

Lawyer Leonardo Bedoyawho filed a civil-administrative lawsuit for annulment, pointed out that it is an agreement of the Bank’s Main Office (SBP) which represents a criminal offense of abuse of authority outside the general law on banks and violates the right to property, violating a number of constitutional norms.

Bedoya was identified as the defendant by the president st board of directors of SBP, Felipe Echandi Lacayo, who signed the agreement N. 002-2023 which amends and adds articles to Corporate Governance Agreementin which he refers to integrity of shareholders, members of the board of directorssenior management and key staff of banks, are now subject to a lawsuit for illegality.

The legal remedy establishes that the defendant’s provision does not state, within its scope causal content, parameters or objective criteriaby which the bank will determine the integrity of the subjects it refers to, which it puts on the same level, even when their role within the bank is of a completely different nature, contrary to what was determined Law on Banks.

The lawyer specified that the agreement of SB violationsfor direct infringement by omission, articles 107 of the Banking Act, article 417 of the Commercial Act, Article 34 of Law 38 of 2000 and 338 of Civil Code.

Additionally, Bedoya points out that the SBP caused by an irregular administrative act called abuse of power. “This concept derives from the adoption or execution of an administrative act which is apparently related to the law, but which was adopted for a reason or for a purpose that is not specified in the law,” the lawsuit states.

The agreement on SBP calls on banking entities to assess the reputation and moral solvency of shareholders through their boards of directors and unilaterally apply measures against them, in open contradiction to what both Commercial Code, such as Act 32 of 1927on public joint-stock companies, with regard to shareholder rights and the Civil Codeon the property.

Contrary to the provisions of contract no. 002-2023, action for nullity urges the SBP to act within the framework the law governing the activity.

The source indicates that the Law on Banks it already establishes the criteria for removal directors, dignitaries or managers when in SBP’s opinion it has merit, and all through the banks’ boards of directors.

While in the case of shareholders The Law on Banks establishes its analysis mechanism with regard to its suitability and economic solvency at the time of the issuance of the banking license and with particular reference to the major shareholders, suit for nullity against the SBP agreement.

Bedoya indicated that in this respect it was convincingly proven that the agreement no. 002-2023 directly violates Article 107. Law on Banks, since entities are called upon to take measures against shareholders based on subjective reasons, ignoring that the Law on Banks exhaustively determines the grounds for taking measures against directors or anyone perform managerial taskssince they participate directly in the bank’s operations, but not in relation to the shareholders.

The lawyer also cited section 417 Commercial Code which establishes that neither Assembly of investors may deprive shareholders of acquired rights or impose them, except in cases provided for by the same code.

“This norm was directly violated, by omission, by the respondent authority, since it ignored its text when it determined that banking entities must take measures against shareholders,” Bedoya said, reiterating that banking law only makes such an attribution with regard to directors, dignitaries or managers, not referring in any way to the shareholders. This means that the SBP agreement includes an accusation of abuse of power.