Post by xyz3700 on Feb 26, 2024 22:49:46 GMT -8
Minority shareholders cannot request compensation from the company for indirect losses. Based on this understanding and that the Federal Court is not competent to judge the case, the 3rd Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (PR, SC and RS) dismissed the action of a minority shareholder of Petrobras who requested compensation for material damages by the Union due to the devaluation of its shares in the state-owned company. reproduction Petrobras should not compensate minority shareholders for devaluation of shares.The case began in, when a doctor filed a lawsuit against Petrobras and the Union at the 4th Federal Court of Florianópolis, requesting that the defendants compensate him for the devaluation of his shares in the investment fund backed by shares in the state-owned company.
The author claimed that the drop in the prices of the 1,900 shares of the company he owned was due to the illegal acts discovered in the “lava jet” operation and that the Union, as the majority shareholder, would be responsible for the financial losses. After the request was denied in the first instance, the author appealed to the court. He claimed that a situation of abuse of power on the part of the majority shareholder was created in view of the Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List cases of corruption in which the company was involved, and that, therefore, the Union's responsibility to compensate him would not depend on the type of damage caused, if direct or indirect. But the 3rd Panel unanimously denied the appeal.The rapporteur of the ruling, federal judge Vânia Hack de Almeida, highlighted the understanding established by the Superior Court of Justice that the action against the controlling shareholder must be promoted by the company, and that the minority shareholder cannot sue the company for indirect losses, since individual action is only applicable in the case of direct damage.
The provisional adjective that names the legislative measure helps to elucidate the projection of the effects of this change into the future. In addition to possible changes by parliament (and to begin with, let us remember, there are already 313 amendments), if the Provisional Measure is not voted on within 120 days, it will lose its effectiveness. the National Congress can change the text of the Provisional Measure and forward it for sanction by the Executive Branch (these possibilities for change are completely open and, initially, 313 proposals were made…); e) the National Congress may regulate, by Legislative Decree, how legal relationships established on the basis of the rejected, lapsed or amended Provisional Measure should be treated; f) the National Congress can regulate transitional situations (as explained in “d”), this prerogative may also not be exercised, a situation in which “the legal relationships established and resulting from acts carried out during its validity will continue to be governed by the MP.
The author claimed that the drop in the prices of the 1,900 shares of the company he owned was due to the illegal acts discovered in the “lava jet” operation and that the Union, as the majority shareholder, would be responsible for the financial losses. After the request was denied in the first instance, the author appealed to the court. He claimed that a situation of abuse of power on the part of the majority shareholder was created in view of the Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List cases of corruption in which the company was involved, and that, therefore, the Union's responsibility to compensate him would not depend on the type of damage caused, if direct or indirect. But the 3rd Panel unanimously denied the appeal.The rapporteur of the ruling, federal judge Vânia Hack de Almeida, highlighted the understanding established by the Superior Court of Justice that the action against the controlling shareholder must be promoted by the company, and that the minority shareholder cannot sue the company for indirect losses, since individual action is only applicable in the case of direct damage.
The provisional adjective that names the legislative measure helps to elucidate the projection of the effects of this change into the future. In addition to possible changes by parliament (and to begin with, let us remember, there are already 313 amendments), if the Provisional Measure is not voted on within 120 days, it will lose its effectiveness. the National Congress can change the text of the Provisional Measure and forward it for sanction by the Executive Branch (these possibilities for change are completely open and, initially, 313 proposals were made…); e) the National Congress may regulate, by Legislative Decree, how legal relationships established on the basis of the rejected, lapsed or amended Provisional Measure should be treated; f) the National Congress can regulate transitional situations (as explained in “d”), this prerogative may also not be exercised, a situation in which “the legal relationships established and resulting from acts carried out during its validity will continue to be governed by the MP.