October 2018

_the October | 2018 edition of our Newsletter has the following highlights:

São Paulo Court of Justice decides on the removal of a partner from a limited liability company due to serious misconduct

Brazilian Federal Revenue Counsel acknowledges the regularity of a corporate reorganization structure involving the sale of corporate stakes by investment funds (FIP)

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice decides on the prescriptive period applicable to the breach of contractual obligations

_São Paulo Court of Justice decides on the removal of a partner from a limited liability company due to serious misconduct

On August 22nd, 2018, the 1st Reserved Chamber of Corporate Law of São Paulo’s Court of Justice, by unanimous decision, granted the appeal (“Appeal”) filed by a limited company and its majority quotaholder to remove the minority quotaholder due to his serious misconduct practices.

The Appeal intended to reform an award enacted within a limited liability company’s partial dissolution claim, which was dismissed and kept the minority quotaholder – who was also the company’s manager – as a quotaholder of the company based on the following grounds: (i) the serious misconduct practices attributed to the minority quotaholder were not proved; and (ii) the breach of the affection societatis is not sufficient motive to judicially remove a quotaholder from a limited liability company corporate structure.

At the decision on the Appeal, the reporting judge acknowledged that it was not possible to remove a quotaholder from a limited liability company solely based on a mere lack of affectio societatis. However, the reporting judge reformed the award enacted by the ordinary courts, as it was proved that: (i) the minority quotaholder disposed of the company’s assets to pay personal expenses, regardless of the necessary independence between his personal belongings and the company’s assets; and (ii) the conflicts between the quotaholders prevented the management and the operation of the company, compromising the regular course of the corporate business.

The reporting judge understood that the acts undertaken by the minority quotaholder consists not only in the breach of the affectio societatis – an essential element for the incorporation of limited liability companies, but also represented a serious misconduct, therefore there was sufficient reason to determine the company’s partial liquidation, with the removal of the quotaholder who incurred in the aforementioned misconduct and later calculation of his compensation in view of such a removal.

More information on the Appeal can be accessed in Portuguese at:

https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cjsg/getArquivo.do?conversationId=&cdAcordao=11745292&cdForo=0&uuidCaptcha=sajcaptcha_3e3e7b0c37594949960ecd3e0a6494e4&vlCaptcha=XQf&novoVlCaptcha

_Brazilian Federal Revenue Counsel acknowledges the regularity of a corporate reorganization structure involving the sale of corporate stakes by an investment fund (FIP)

On June 15th, 2018, the 1st Ordinary Panel of the 2nd Chamber of the Brazilian Federal Revenue Counsel (“CARF”) ruled upon an administrative proceeding (“Administrative Proceeding”) in which it acknowledged the regularity of a corporate reorganization structure involving the transfer of corporate interest to an investment fund (“FIP”) followed by the sale of such corporate interest to a third party, which resulted on the reduction of capital gains taxes (“Corporate Reorganization”).

The Administrative Proceeding was originated from a tax assessment notice issued by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Services regarding the collection of corporate income tax (“IRPJ”) and social contribution on net profits (“CSLL”) on the sale of shares by a FIP because the FIP had only been incorporated as an instrument for tax evasion.

Within the Corporate Reorganization, a holding company controlled by the FIP had its capital stock reduced, with the payment of the amount due to the FIP made with the transfer of the shares then held by such holding company in its subsidiaries. As a result, the FIP became the direct quotaholder of the subsidiaries and,  in the following steps of the Corporate Reorganization, was able to sell these shares in a more tax efficient way.

The Brazilian Federal Revenue Services argued that the FIP was incorporated as an instrument for tax evasion, once the taxation of capital gains arising from the sale of its assets, such as the shares issued by the subsidiaries, is different and results in the reduction of the IRPJ and CSLL that would be due in case the holding company had sold these shares and recorded said capital gain.

Therefore, Brazilian tax authorities asked that the sale of the shares directly by the FIP not be enforceable for tax purposes, as it was deemed to be a simulated transaction, in order to levy the IRPJ and CSLL on capital gains as if the holding company had sold the shares of its subsidiaries held by it before the capital stock reduction.

The reporting judge, followed by the majority of the judges, sustained that, in the Corporate reorganization structure: (i) the FIP was not incorporated only as an instrument to allow the reduction of taxes on capital gains; (ii) the FIP’s role was to consolidate the management of assets, which may cause some assets to be sold for the acquisition of more profitable ones; and (iii) the funds obtained with the sale of the shares did not return to the holding company; instead, they were used by the FIP to acquire other assets, which, between 2009 and 2015, resulted in the increase of the FIP’s net worth in more than R$300 million, which emphasizes the negotiation purpose of the FIP’s incorporation.

It is important to mention that in October 2017, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Services enacted Provisional Measure No. 806, which caused the taxation of capital gains arising from the sale of assets by a FIP to be the same as the taxation of capital gains arising from the sale of assets by a company. The aforementioned Provisional Measure was not converted into law and has lost its validity in April 2018.

More information on the Administrative Proceeding can be accessed in Portuguese at:

https://carf.fazenda.gov.br/sincon/public/pages/ConsultarJurisprudencia/listaJurisprudenciaCarf.jsf

_Brazilian Superior Court of Justice decides on the prescriptive period applicable to the breach of contractual obligations

On June 27th, 2018, the 2nd Section of the Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”), by majority of votes, denied the Divergence Appeal filed on a Special Appeal (“Divergence Appeal”) in order to maintain the decision that fixed the prescriptive period of 10 years to file a motion for indemnification in case of breach of contractual obligations.

On the Divergence Appeal it was discussed whether, in case of breach of contractual obligations, the limitation period for the creditor to charge the debtor for the nonperformance of a contractual obligation would be decennial, pursuant to the Article 205 of the Brazilian Civil Code, or triennial, pursuant to Article 206, paragraph 3th, subparagraph V of the aforementioned code.

In the Divergence Appeal judgement, Justice Nancy Andrighi, followed by the majority of STJ justices, clarified that:

(i) The expression “civil repair” in Article 206, paragraph 3th, subparagraph V, of the Brazilian Civil Code does not include the indemnification of any and all negative, patrimonial or extra patrimonial, consequences arising from the breach of legal duties, but only the civil liability arising from illegal extra-contractual acts;

(ii) In case of contractual civil liability, i. e., the liability arising from the breach of a contracted duty, whatever the creditor claim may be – specific performance of the contracted obligations, reimbursement of damages and losses or contractual resolution, the prescriptive period is always decennial; and

(iii) The different treatment given to the contractual civil liability, which prescriptive period is decennial, and the extra-contractual civil liability, which prescriptive period is triennial, does not violate the equality principle, since the circumstances that generate them are absolutely distinct.

More information on the Divergence Appeal can be accessed in Portuguese at:

https://ww2.stj.jus.br/processo/revista/inteiroteor/?num_registro=201101903977&dt_publicacao=02/08/2018

September 2018

_the September│2018 edition of our newsletter has the following highlights:

Brazilian Superior Court of Justice acknowledges the competence of arbitral courts to decide on matters related to the partial dissolution of a limited liability company.

Enacted law ruling upon the protection of personal data and modifying Brazilian regulation over internet issues

Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission and Brazilian Antitrust Authorities establish a new group for collaborative work

Once again, Founding Partner Gyedre Carneiro de Oliveira has been ranked in Chambers Global/2019 and in Chambers Latin America/2019

On June 12th, 2018, the 3rd panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice has unanimously refused Appeal No. 1.727.979 (“Appeal No. 1.727.979”), filed by the estate of a deceased partner of a limited liability company against the decision issued by a lower Court sustaining an award which extinguished the proocedings related to the partial dissolution of the limited liability company and the reimbursement of assets due to the death of the aforementioned partner and the absence of “affectio societatis” between the company’s remaining partners and the successors of the deceased partner. This claim was filed by the deceased partner’s estate in order to exercise its right to withdraw from the company (“Company”) and obtain the reimbursement of the value of the quotas for further allocation among the deceased partner’s successors.

The claim filed by the estate was extinguished because the Company’s articles of association had an arbitration clause that submitted any conflict among its partners, the Company and its managers to a pre-selected arbitral court, in which case filing a judicial claim related to the partial dissolution of the corporate partnership due to the death of a partner before the judicial courts would not be admissible. The estate argued that the arbitration clause in the Company’s articles of association was not applicable to this specific claim once the partial dissolution of corporate partnership was based on succession law provisions of strictly personal and non-disposable nature, in which case the claim had to be decided by the judicial courts.

THE REPORTING JUSTICE FOR THE APPEAL, JUSTICE MARCO AURÉLIO BELIZZE, HAD A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING, AS FOLLOWS: (I) A PARTIAL DISSOLUTION OF  LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CLAIM AIMS AT SETTLING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN EITHER THE SUCCESSORS OF THE DECEASED PARTNER, WHO DO NOT INTEND TO BECOME PARTNERS OF SUCH LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, OR THE REMAINING PARTNERS, WHO, FOR SOME REASON, INTEND TO PREVENT THAT THE SUCCESSORS OF ANY DECEASED PARTNER BECOME QUOTAHOLDERS; (II) THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS DISCUSSED WITHIN SUCH SCOPE, EVEN THOUGH BASED ON SUCCESSION LAW, ARE EXCLUSIVELY CORPORATE RIGHTS AND, THEREFORE, HAVE A DISPOSABLE NATURE; (III) THE CLAIM’S OBJECTIVE WAS TO DEFINE THE CONTINUANCE OF THE LEGAL ENTITY AND ITS CORPORATE STRUCTURE AND THUS IS SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; AND (IV) CONSIDERING THAT THE PARTNERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY CORPORATE RULES, IN SPECIAL THOSE SET FORTH IN THE COMPANY’S ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION, FOR THE SAME REASON, THEIR SUCCESSORS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO EXCUSE THEMSELVES FROM ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED RULES, OTHERWISE THE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION AND THE PARTNERS WILLING WOULD BE VIOLATED AND COMPROMISED.

As a result, the understanding that the partial dissolution of the limited liability company should be decided by the arbitral court appointed in the arbitration clause set forth in the Company’s articles of association prevailed.

More information on Appeal 1.727.979 can be accessed in Portuguese at:

http://www.stj.jus.br/SCON/jurisprudencia/toc.jsp?processo=1727979&&b=ACOR&thesaurus=JURIDICO&p=true

_Enacted law which rules upon the protection of personal data and modifies Brazilian regulation over internet issues

On August 14th, 2018, the Brazilian President enacted, with some reservations, Law No. 13.709 (“Law No. 13.709”), which rules upon the protection of personal data and modifies the Brazilian regulation over internet issues, coming into force on February 15th, 2020.

Law No. 13.709 is considered a regulatory landmark, as it (i) foresees numerous rights for the owners of personal data stored by individuals or legal entities, public or private, which act as holders (i.e., responsible to decide on the treatment to be given to personal data) or handlers (i.e. those who treat personal data as required by the holders) of such personal data; (ii) indicates an exhaustive list of legal hypothesis in which the treatment of data is authorized and; (iii) establishes proceedings for such data to be safely treated or transferred.

Among the innovations brought by Law No. 13.709., we highlight:

(i) the principle of intention, whereby any personal data shall only be used for the specific purpose that caused them to be gathered;

(ii) the principle of minimum gathering, which determines that only the minimum personal data necessary for a specific purpose can be gathered;

(iii) the principle of minimum retention, whereby any holder or handler of personal data shall eliminate the data they obtained right after the purpose which justified its gathering is accomplished;

(iv) the principle of accountability, which establishes that holders of personal data shall evaluate the whole treatment cycle of such data in order to appoint the grounds which authorize its treatment and the safety measures adopted to minimize eventual incidents;

(v) the right to transfer personal data, which allows the owner of such data to request its transfer to other holders;

(vi) the obligation of the data holder to inform any safety incident, such as information on leaks which may cause any risk or relevant damage to data owners;

(vii) the position of Data Protection Officer, a person whose identity and contact information shall be publicly disclosed, preferably on the website of the data holder and who is responsible for the communication channel between data holders, data owners and the competent Brazilian authorities.

In case rules set forth in Law 13.709 are violated, the competent Brazilian authorities may apply, upon administrative proceedings, certain administrative penalties, including fines of up to 2% of the turnover of the legal entity or offending group in the last fiscal year, limited to R$50 million per infraction.

It is also worth noting that the creation of the National Data Protection Authority, a competent governmental authority to monitor the compliance with Law 13.709 and to determine the corresponding sanctions, foreseen in the preliminary minute of Law 13.709, was vetoed by the Brazilian President, who understood that the creation of a new public entity should be proposed by the executive branch. According to media reports, the federal executive branch intends to send a bill to the Brazilian Federal Congress on this subject.

More information can be accessed in Portuguese at:

http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/lei/L13709.htm

_Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission and Brazilian Antitrust Authorities establish a new group for collaborative work

On August 14th, 2018, it was enacted the Joint Ordinance CADE/CVM No. 5 (“Ordinance CADE/CVM No.5”) in order to create a working group (“Working Group”) aiming to improve the institutional relationship between the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (“CVM”) and the Brazilian Counsel of Economic Defense (“CADE”) related to: (i) the exchange of common interest information related to securities issuers subject to the supervision of CVM and the investment funds industry; and (ii) the exchange of information and guidelines about CADE’s Program and Leniency Manual and the work developed by CVM regarding administrative settlements in supervisory proceedings.

Pursuant to Ordinance CADE/CVM No. 5, CVM’s and CADE’s representatives shall take part in the Working Group, which was created for an initial term of 180 days, counted from the date of its first meeting, after which the discussions shall be concluded.

More information on this Working Group can be accessed in Portuguese at:

http://www.cvm.gov.br/export/sites/cvm/noticias/anexos/2018/20180816_portaria_conjunta_cvm_cade_5_2018.pdf

_Once again, Founding Partner Gyedre Carneiro de Oliveira has been ranked in Chambers Global/2019 and in Chambers Latin America/2019

Founding Partner Gyedre Carneiro de Oliveira has been once again ranked in 2019 edition of the Chambers and Partners Global and Latin America guides. The renowned British publication is one of the most prestigious legal directories which identifies and ranks the most outstanding lawyers in the world and in Latin America based on research and client interviews

More information about Chambers and Partners is available at https://www.chambersandpartners.com/

April 2018

_the April │ 2018 edition of our newsletter has the following highlights:

CVM decided on the replacement of Board members elected through the multiple voting process

CODIM disclosed Guidance Statement on “Shareholder Participation at General Meetings”

CVM publishes annual report on its sanctioning activities in 2017

The founding partner Gyedre Carneiro de Oliveira was recently recognized by Who’s Who Legal 2017

 

_ CVM decided on the replacement of Board members elected through the multiple voting process

In a recent decision, the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“CVM”) decided on the replacement of members of the Board of Directors of a publicly-held company in case of vacancies due to resignation and death of members elected through the multiple voting process.

In this case, the Board of Directors was elected at the Ordinary General Shareholders Meeting (“AGO“) held in 2016 for a mandate of 2 years, and it was composed of 11 effective members and their respective alternates, among which 3 effective members of the Board of Directors and their respective alternates were elected through separate voting process, and the remaining members and their respective alternates were elected through the multiple voting process.

During the year 2016, two positions of effective members of the Board of Directors became vacant due to the death of one member and the resignation of another one.

Considering that the company’s bylaws did not establish the possibility of replacement of these members by the alternate members in case of permanent vacancy, the Board of Directors approved the appointment of 2 new effective members to replace the former members, with a mandate until the company’s next general meeting, pursuant to article 150 of Law No. 6,404/76 (“Brazilian Corporation Law”), as well as established that all members of the Board of Directors elected by multiple voting process would also have a mandate until the company’s next general meeting.

In this context, the managers’ proposal for the company’s 2017 AGO, the first meeting held after the vacancies in the Board included a resolution on the election of new directors, replacing all the Board members elected by the multiple voting process.

However, before the 2017 AGO, minority shareholders of the company submitted a complaint to the Superintendence of Corporate Relations at CVM (“SEP”) questioning the validity of the procedure adopted by the company to replace all Board members elected by the multiple voting process and requested the suspension of the election.

In summary, SEP decided in favor of minority shareholders, arguing that, in the event of vacancy of effective members of the Board of Directors for reasons other than dismissal by the general meeting, it would not be necessary to hold a new election of all members of the board of directors elected though the multiple voting process if the effective member was elected along with his/her respective alternate, in accordance with article 141, §3º of Brazilian Corporation Law.

Due to SEP’s decision, the company filed an appeal, claiming that the procedure was in accordance with the rules set forth in its bylaws and in the Brazilian Corporate Law.

In reviewing the case, CVM Director in charge of this procedure highlighted important guidelines for interpreting the provisions set forth in the Brazilian Corporation Law in case of replacement of members of the board of directors, as follows:

  • It is optional to appoint alternate members to the board of directors, and it is up to the shareholders, if they wish to do so, to define the duties of the alternates in the company’s Bylaws;
  • Unless otherwise provided for in the company’s Bylaws, in any case of vacancy, even in cases of election by multiple voting process, the general rule set forth in Article 150 of the Brazilian Corporation Law shall apply. Therefore, in case of vacancy a new members may be appointed by the Board of Directors with a mandate until the next general shareholder’s meeting; and
  • In the event of election through multiple voting process, in order to avoid the necessity of new election of the entire Board of Directors, the alternate must fulfill 2 conditions: (i) to be expressly allowed, pursuant to the company’s Bylaws, to fill the vacant position; and (ii) to have been appointed by the same group of shareholders that appointed the replaced member. If these requirements have not been met, pursuant to article 141, paragraph 3 of the Brazilian Corporation Law, the general shareholders’ meeting must convene to elect all members of the board of directors that have been elected though the multiple voting process.

BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE REPORTING DIRECTOR CONCLUDED, IN HIS VOTE, THAT THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE COMPANY’S MANAGEMENT WAS APPROPRIATED, SINCE THE COMPANY’S BYLAWS DID NOT ESTABLISH THE POSSIBILITY OF REPLACEMENT BY THE ALTERNATE MEMBERS IN CASE OF PERMANENT VACANCY.

Finally, CVM Board, by unanimous vote, accepted the appeal filed by the company and reversed SPE’s decision.

The decision can be accessed in Portuguese at:

http://www.cvm.gov.br/decisoes/2018/20180220_R1/20180220_D0697.html

_ CODIM disclosed the Guidance Statement on “Shareholder Participation at General Meetings”

On March 14, 2018, the CODIM (the Guidance Committee for the Disclosure of Information to the Market) disclosed the Guidance Statement on “Shareholder Participation at General Meetings”.

According to CODIM’s coordinators, the objective of the Guidance Statement No. 24 is to assist companies in developing and establishing mechanisms to facilitate and encourage the participation of shareholders, as well as to improve the disclosure of information to shareholders, enabling a more active involvement on their part in the General Meetings.

We have highlighted below the main recommendations:

  • Simplification of the shareholder participation process in the General Meetings, through the admission of digitally certified documents and an analysis thereof always based on the principle of objective good faith. It also recommends full disclosure of any exemption from compliance with other formalities, such as notarization and consular legalization and/or the Hague Apostille and other document requirements regarding shareholders’ representation;
  • Development and implementation of a Proposal Storage Center, by the company or third parties, through an electronic system, that would allow shareholders and custodians to make available any material related to the General Meeting, such as their voting statements, questions, proposals, and candidates to the board of directors and to the audit committee, in order to facilitate the disclosure of information to shareholders who will not be physically present at the General Meeting; and
  • Development and implementation of an Engagement Policy to improve the interaction between the Board of Directors and the shareholders on a continuous ways and not restricted to the General Meeting, enhancing the communication between shareholders and the company and increasing the transparency of actions taken by the Board.

The Guidance Statement on “Shareholder Participation at General Meetings” can be accessed in Portuguese at: http://www.projup.com.br/arq/121/arq_121_222577.pdf

_ CVM publishes annual report on its sanctioning activities in 2017

On March 27, 2018, CVM released the second edition of its report on sanctioning activity. This report contains key findings and results in this area, and aims at promoting a better understanding of CVM functions, as well as at enhancing market transparency.

According to the report, the total amount of fines applied in 2017 was R$166 million, a significant increase if compared to the average of the previous 3 years, which was R$ 103 million.

The report highlighted a few landmark cases that were filled and/or decided in 2017 regarding insider trading, abuse of voting rights by controlling shareholders, failure to comply with directors’ and officers’ fiduciary duties, irregular compensation of board members and failure to include mandatory information in the prospectus of public offerings and in the reference form (Formulário de Referência).

The Annual Report on CVM sanctioning activities in 2017 can be accessed in Portuguese at:

http://www.cvm.gov.br/export/sites/cvm/publicacao/relatorio_atividade_sancionadora/anexos/2018/Relatorio_Atividade_Sancionadora_2017_janeirodezembro.pdf

Our founding partner Gyedre Carneiro de Oliveira was recently recognized as an esteemed M&A lawyer by Who’s Who Legal, a leading directory on the global legal market, which, like Latin Lawyer, is edited by Law Business Research.

More information regarding the Who’s Who as well as our founding partner professional biography can be accessed at:

http://whoswholegal.com/profiles/81122/0/carneiro-de-oliveria/gyedre-palma-carneiro-de-oliveria/