Post by xyz3600 on Feb 24, 2024 23:00:14 GMT -5
The BNDES reported this Friday (4/10) that it went to court to try to force Odebrecht to change its judicial recovery plan. The bank understands that the construction company's proposal does not have the potential to generate payment of credits. The company owes more than R$8 billion to the public development institution. reproduction BNDES has R$8 billion in Odebrecht “The BNDES presented its objection to Odebrecht’s judicial recovery plan yesterday (October 4). BNDES considered that the proposal does not demonstrate the company's recovery capacity”, said the bank in a note this Saturday (5/10). Caixa Econômica Federal, one of the largest creditors, filed for the construction company's bankruptcy , as it does not believe that the approved plan will work. Court Approval The São Paulo Court accepted the Odebrecht Group's request for judicial recovery in June.
Total debt reaches R$98.5 billion. This is the largest judicial recovery plan in the history of Brazil. The Odebrecht group, which had more than 180,000 employees five years ago, today has less than 50,000. The company attributes this result to “the economic crisis that frustrated many of the investment plans made by ODB, the reputational impact of errors made and the difficulty that companies that collaborate with the Justice system Middle East Mobile Number List face in order to receive new credits and have their services contracted again.An agreement concluded at the federal level does not make that federal level a “prevention” for the illicit acts in question, allowing sanctioning measures from other regional and local authorities. This is slightly different from what happens in other countries, such as the USA, since the agreements are concluded with the country, and not with the bodies – in the USA, apparently, Otto Gierke's theory of volitional imputation works better than here.
It is true that, to address this problem, a constitutional reform would be necessary in order to conform the competence (without suppressing it) of each of the federative entities, which is not the purpose of this text. The objective here is to draw attention to the need for a specific but comprehensive normative framework (in order to bring the necessary predictability and legal certainty, together with breadth in its application) [6] , for the conclusion of agreements in general in headquarters for administrative offenses, especially with the growth in the classification of administrative offenses in Brazil in recent years [7] . The New Code of Civil Procedure, in its art. 3rd, § 2nd, proclaims the consensual solution of conflicts by the State. Therefore, it is necessary that the use of agreements between the State and infringing companies be encouraged, to increasingly bring about the pacification of conflicts and the upliftment of the company after difficulties experienced due to failures in relation to corporate illicit acts.
Total debt reaches R$98.5 billion. This is the largest judicial recovery plan in the history of Brazil. The Odebrecht group, which had more than 180,000 employees five years ago, today has less than 50,000. The company attributes this result to “the economic crisis that frustrated many of the investment plans made by ODB, the reputational impact of errors made and the difficulty that companies that collaborate with the Justice system Middle East Mobile Number List face in order to receive new credits and have their services contracted again.An agreement concluded at the federal level does not make that federal level a “prevention” for the illicit acts in question, allowing sanctioning measures from other regional and local authorities. This is slightly different from what happens in other countries, such as the USA, since the agreements are concluded with the country, and not with the bodies – in the USA, apparently, Otto Gierke's theory of volitional imputation works better than here.
It is true that, to address this problem, a constitutional reform would be necessary in order to conform the competence (without suppressing it) of each of the federative entities, which is not the purpose of this text. The objective here is to draw attention to the need for a specific but comprehensive normative framework (in order to bring the necessary predictability and legal certainty, together with breadth in its application) [6] , for the conclusion of agreements in general in headquarters for administrative offenses, especially with the growth in the classification of administrative offenses in Brazil in recent years [7] . The New Code of Civil Procedure, in its art. 3rd, § 2nd, proclaims the consensual solution of conflicts by the State. Therefore, it is necessary that the use of agreements between the State and infringing companies be encouraged, to increasingly bring about the pacification of conflicts and the upliftment of the company after difficulties experienced due to failures in relation to corporate illicit acts.