Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 4:20:45 GMT
The state bank filed a petition with the 1st Civil Court of Recoveries and Bankruptcies of São Paulo this Monday (23). In the request, Caixa claims that Odebreht's judicial recovery “is unable to continue” because the company's plan does not present the necessary information to pay creditors. The bank also alleges that Odebrecht failed to comply with the order that authorized the processing of the company's judicial recovery plan. It also argues that there is no justification for including all non-operating companies in the group and leaving out companies such as OEC (construction) and Braskem (petrochemicals) — the latter being the most profitable part of the holding. The request also requests the exclusion of “Odebrecht Finance” since the company's only debt is that of guarantor of the bonds that were issued.
Finally, Caixa considers that the plan presented aimed to benefit creditors with greater liabilities and inferior assets to the detriment of creditors whose debtors have greater assets and are capable of effectively meeting the liabilities they gave rise to. Among Odebrecht's main creditor institutions, Caixa is the only one that does not have a shareholding in Braskem and, consequently, the one that is most at risk from a possible bankruptcy of the Middle East Mobile Number List group. The request for judicial recovery of the holding company Odebrecht SA covers debts worth R$98.5 billion. It is the largest recovery request in the country's history and exceeds that of Oi, which reached R$64 billion.Tax debt guarantee the judge recalled that the public entity has the right to refuse the guarantee, in the same way that it is guaranteed to reject assets offered for seizure, under the terms of articles 11 and 15 of the lef.
However, in this case, the refusal is not justified, because the asset offered is sufficient to guarantee the tax credit. "it is worth noting that, according to registration, the asset is also guaranteeing another debt, arising from process -001-/, in the amount of r which does not affect the guarantee now offered, taking into account given the high value of the property that is serving as collateral.Contrary to sense, this last section may even lead the interpreter to the conclusion that, although exceptional, the review of the so-called “civil and business contracts” is permitted — which does not seem to be the case. Article 421-a, it is worth remembering, had its content, in the text of the converted provisional measure, expressed in the now expired articles 480-a and 480-b, reflecting that the original intention was, in fact, to bring changes to the excessive onerousness model.
Finally, Caixa considers that the plan presented aimed to benefit creditors with greater liabilities and inferior assets to the detriment of creditors whose debtors have greater assets and are capable of effectively meeting the liabilities they gave rise to. Among Odebrecht's main creditor institutions, Caixa is the only one that does not have a shareholding in Braskem and, consequently, the one that is most at risk from a possible bankruptcy of the Middle East Mobile Number List group. The request for judicial recovery of the holding company Odebrecht SA covers debts worth R$98.5 billion. It is the largest recovery request in the country's history and exceeds that of Oi, which reached R$64 billion.Tax debt guarantee the judge recalled that the public entity has the right to refuse the guarantee, in the same way that it is guaranteed to reject assets offered for seizure, under the terms of articles 11 and 15 of the lef.
However, in this case, the refusal is not justified, because the asset offered is sufficient to guarantee the tax credit. "it is worth noting that, according to registration, the asset is also guaranteeing another debt, arising from process -001-/, in the amount of r which does not affect the guarantee now offered, taking into account given the high value of the property that is serving as collateral.Contrary to sense, this last section may even lead the interpreter to the conclusion that, although exceptional, the review of the so-called “civil and business contracts” is permitted — which does not seem to be the case. Article 421-a, it is worth remembering, had its content, in the text of the converted provisional measure, expressed in the now expired articles 480-a and 480-b, reflecting that the original intention was, in fact, to bring changes to the excessive onerousness model.