Post by account_disabled on Jan 10, 2024 22:54:46 GMT -5
The Union is not responsible for acts carried out by a Petrobras director. With this understanding, the Federal Court of São Paulo annulled a partial arbitration award that could generate losses of around R$166 billion for federal coffers. The decision is from the beginning of this month. In April, an injunction in the same sense had already been granted. reproduction Arbitration decisions could cost R$166 billion to the public coffers, according to the federal government’s forecast The two procedures were initiated in 2017 at the Brazilian Arbitration Chamber (CAM), of B3, at the request of minority shareholders of Petrobras.
They maintained that the Union must invest money in the company to compensate for the company's loss of value during investigations into corruption schemes in recent years, such as those of "lava jet". The Fundação Movimento Universitário de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Mudes) and Alejandro Constantino Stratiotis claimed that the Union would be bound by the demand based on article 58 of Telegram Number Data Petrobras' Bylaws, according to which "disputes or controversies must be resolved through arbitration involving the company, its shareholders, administrators and tax advisors". The Federal Attorney General's Office took action so that the Union would not be obliged to participate in arbitration procedures to resolve conflicts involving Petrobras, shareholders and administrators of the state-owned company.
The AGU maintained that the Union never expressed its intention to submit to the procedure and that there is no legal relationship that obliges it to participate. The Federal Court of São Paulo stated that Petrobras' statute does not include the Treasury's liability for acts carried out by company directors. "Intending, through arbitration, to hold the Union responsible for the appointment of the president and respective directors of Petrobras is to give the statute contours that it does not have", pointed out an excerpt from the decision. the Union was not authorized to participate in procedures arbitration as a general rule — which only happened in 2015", explains União lawyer Tatiana Mesquita Nunes, member of the AGU Specialized Arbitration Center.
They maintained that the Union must invest money in the company to compensate for the company's loss of value during investigations into corruption schemes in recent years, such as those of "lava jet". The Fundação Movimento Universitário de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Mudes) and Alejandro Constantino Stratiotis claimed that the Union would be bound by the demand based on article 58 of Telegram Number Data Petrobras' Bylaws, according to which "disputes or controversies must be resolved through arbitration involving the company, its shareholders, administrators and tax advisors". The Federal Attorney General's Office took action so that the Union would not be obliged to participate in arbitration procedures to resolve conflicts involving Petrobras, shareholders and administrators of the state-owned company.
The AGU maintained that the Union never expressed its intention to submit to the procedure and that there is no legal relationship that obliges it to participate. The Federal Court of São Paulo stated that Petrobras' statute does not include the Treasury's liability for acts carried out by company directors. "Intending, through arbitration, to hold the Union responsible for the appointment of the president and respective directors of Petrobras is to give the statute contours that it does not have", pointed out an excerpt from the decision. the Union was not authorized to participate in procedures arbitration as a general rule — which only happened in 2015", explains União lawyer Tatiana Mesquita Nunes, member of the AGU Specialized Arbitration Center.