Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 5:52:51 GMT
In order not to violate the principle of double jurisdiction, the 1st Chamber of Business Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo decided that it is up to the court of origin to decide on the fate of the shares of Aracati Energia Renovável, a company linked to the Odebrecht Group, which is in judicial recovery. Odebrecht Odebrecht Shares of Aracati, linked to Odebrecht Energia, are discussed in court The issue was taken to the TJ-SP by one of the contractor's creditors, who received Aracati shares as collateral for a loan. The creditor asked to execute the shares, as they were not included by Odebrecht as essential capital assets in the request for judicial recovery. However, the judge who approved the plan did not comment on the essentiality of Aracati's actions.
In the understanding of the rapporteur, judge Alexandre Lazzarini, the issue could not be debated, at this time, in the second instance. First, it is up to the court of origin to analyze the situation of these social quotas. “Thus, this issue can only be debated after analysis by the recovery court, when a conflict arises between creditors and debtor (Odebrecht Energia SA), which has not yet occurred. Removing, at this moment, the Honduras Mobile Number List essentiality of the fiduciary alienated social participation would violate the principle of double degree of jurisdiction, since the first instance decided nothing specifically about Aracati's social shares”, he said. In the same session, the Chamber authorized creditor banks to execute Braskem's shares given as collateral for loans made to the contractor.
In this case, Braskem's shares had already been recognized as an essential asset in the first instance, which allowed analysis by the TJ-SP. “ Contrary to what happened with Braskem's actions, the magistrate did not analyze the essential nature of the guarantees offered to the appellant, namely, Aracati's social shares,” said Lazzarini.Furthermore, article 34 of the aforementioned law is clear in providing for the autonomy of branches and subsidiaries for the purposes of licensing, installation and responsibility. Therefore, the regulatory decree could not establish a provision to the contrary and bind the licensing conditions of subsidiaries those of the headquarters or headquarters", concluded the minister when denying Anvisa's appeal. With information from the STJ press office.
In the understanding of the rapporteur, judge Alexandre Lazzarini, the issue could not be debated, at this time, in the second instance. First, it is up to the court of origin to analyze the situation of these social quotas. “Thus, this issue can only be debated after analysis by the recovery court, when a conflict arises between creditors and debtor (Odebrecht Energia SA), which has not yet occurred. Removing, at this moment, the Honduras Mobile Number List essentiality of the fiduciary alienated social participation would violate the principle of double degree of jurisdiction, since the first instance decided nothing specifically about Aracati's social shares”, he said. In the same session, the Chamber authorized creditor banks to execute Braskem's shares given as collateral for loans made to the contractor.
In this case, Braskem's shares had already been recognized as an essential asset in the first instance, which allowed analysis by the TJ-SP. “ Contrary to what happened with Braskem's actions, the magistrate did not analyze the essential nature of the guarantees offered to the appellant, namely, Aracati's social shares,” said Lazzarini.Furthermore, article 34 of the aforementioned law is clear in providing for the autonomy of branches and subsidiaries for the purposes of licensing, installation and responsibility. Therefore, the regulatory decree could not establish a provision to the contrary and bind the licensing conditions of subsidiaries those of the headquarters or headquarters", concluded the minister when denying Anvisa's appeal. With information from the STJ press office.