Amid investor complaints PetrobrasThe most advanced arbitration is that which involves Previ I Petros – Pension Fund Bank of brazil And Petrobras itself. The case against the company, opened in 2017, attracted a lot of attention from investors involved in other initiatives against the company. This is because in this case, there was a favorable decision for the investors, but Petrobras appealed. Result: An apostrophe was established in relation to a case that remains undefined.
Despite the “rush” of investors, experts consulted Estado Explain that the outcome of this arbitration will have no effect on others, although it certainly establishes a history on the subject, since all arbitrations involve the same subject. Furthermore, the case may decide how much Petrobras will ultimately have to reserve in the provisions for final reimbursement.
There is another arbitration in the progress of institutional investors, including investment funds and foundations, which are also brought by the firm Modesto Carvalhosa. The office consists of a group of investors involved in a third case Minority investors association. The latter was born as a public civil action, but, by the court’s decision, went into an arbitration room.
It is the most valuable process among the five that includes Petrobras. This is because this case brings together all the Petrobras investors of the time, including money and individuals. Investors who are in other arbitrations can still decide whether they want to wait for a collective arbitration decision. The amount of this arbitration, estimated at $ 40 billion, assumes that all investors participate in this collective action.
The report found that in addition to these five intermediaries, Petrobras and investors would include three others. Not all are known because they are confidential. Said, Petrobras declined to comment.
However, in favor of a state-owned company, the fact is that Brazilian law does not directly consider the payment of indemnity by companies to their investors. Mariana Pagendler, professor of business law at FGV, says the Petrobras case is very important, as there is little jurisprudence on the subject. “This is a matter which may take a turn in this matter. It is worrying that foreign investors have a right and those who buy shares in Brazil do not. Accountability has to be fixed. ”
According to the expert, the issue is controversial, but, for him, it is clear that a company can compensate shareholders. “The company is a type of legal person and is responsible for its illegal acts.”
Therefore, there is a stake in whether shareholders can get compensation directly from companies. Anyone who opposes argues that Brazilian corporate law does not make this type of provision and that only managers and controllers can be condemned for condemning shareholders as a way of protecting the company.
Insists, contrary to “under Brazilian corporate law, there are some limitations to the direct compensation claim by the investor against the company, which happens in other countries” MAMG Advagados partner, Rafael Alves.
Service PGLY Partner and Professor at USP, Carlos Portugal Gouvea, Direct compensation to investors by companies is possible. “According to a recent study OECD, A Brazilian rule that restricts the possibility of compensating minority investors in publicly held companies for a number of reasons. However, Gouve says the problem with arbitration is secrecy. Therefore, in his view, public civic functions would be more profitable.