Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 5:43:39 GMT 1
If the service was provided before the request for judicial recovery, the credit must be included in the general list of creditors. The jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice was reaffirmed by minister Maria Isabel Galloti in a case involving a road company and an insurance company. 123RF 123RF The case began with an accident involving a road company vehicle, which transports passengers with buses, and a car. The car insurance company went to charge the company for the accident, but the company claimed that it was already in judicial recovery. Therefore, the credit should be included in the list of creditors. However, in the first and second instance it was decided that the credit should not be included in the judicial recovery and, therefore, should be paid independently of other creditors.
At the STJ, the rapporteur stated that it was clear that the credit predates the request for judicial recovery and therefore must be included with the others. Maria Isabel cited the decision of the judge called Lázaro Guimarães in the TRF-5 case: "Article 49 of Law provides that 'all credits existing on the date of the request are subject to judicial recovery, even if not due', which leads to the conclusion that the Middle East Mobile Number List submission of a given credit to Judicial Recovery does not depend on judicial provision prior or contemporaneous to the request, but only that it refers to facts that occurred before the request".Admitting the validity of the meeting resolution that leaves it up to the company to pay dividends already declared would be giving legal value and considering an authoritative condition. And the legal system prohibits this (Civil Code, art. 122)”, said judge Cesar Ciampolini.
In a paradigmatic decision, the cade court understood, however, that the proposed acc would raise more competition concerns than unrestricted approval (the remedy would increase coordination risks). – the acquisition of nextel telecomunicações by américa móvil – claro’s controlling company – was approved without restrictions[6] . The court concluded that the conditions of rivalry were sufficient and that the spectrum issue had been duly assessed by anatel. – in december, months after approving an acquisition carried out by prosegur in a case that generated extensive discussion[7] , the cade court conditioned the approval of the new acquisition on the signing of an acc in which prosegur undertakes not to acquire control or equity interest in other companies that offer value transportation services for the next three years, throughout the territory national[8] . Therefore, cade recognizes that the concentration in the value transportation sector is worrying and must be stopped.
At the STJ, the rapporteur stated that it was clear that the credit predates the request for judicial recovery and therefore must be included with the others. Maria Isabel cited the decision of the judge called Lázaro Guimarães in the TRF-5 case: "Article 49 of Law provides that 'all credits existing on the date of the request are subject to judicial recovery, even if not due', which leads to the conclusion that the Middle East Mobile Number List submission of a given credit to Judicial Recovery does not depend on judicial provision prior or contemporaneous to the request, but only that it refers to facts that occurred before the request".Admitting the validity of the meeting resolution that leaves it up to the company to pay dividends already declared would be giving legal value and considering an authoritative condition. And the legal system prohibits this (Civil Code, art. 122)”, said judge Cesar Ciampolini.
In a paradigmatic decision, the cade court understood, however, that the proposed acc would raise more competition concerns than unrestricted approval (the remedy would increase coordination risks). – the acquisition of nextel telecomunicações by américa móvil – claro’s controlling company – was approved without restrictions[6] . The court concluded that the conditions of rivalry were sufficient and that the spectrum issue had been duly assessed by anatel. – in december, months after approving an acquisition carried out by prosegur in a case that generated extensive discussion[7] , the cade court conditioned the approval of the new acquisition on the signing of an acc in which prosegur undertakes not to acquire control or equity interest in other companies that offer value transportation services for the next three years, throughout the territory national[8] . Therefore, cade recognizes that the concentration in the value transportation sector is worrying and must be stopped.