Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 5:24:51 GMT -5
Shareholders who sell their stake in a company and regret it can ask for their shares back, even after having been paid. At least if the judge is judge Nélio Stábile, from the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso do Sul. The specific case is part of the dispute between Paper Excellence and J&F for control of Eldorado Celulose. Stábile reaffirmed his monocratic decision on Friday (6/12). Businessman Mário Celso Lopes, arrested in on charges of fraudulent management of pension funds, sold his company, which was a shareholder in Eldorado — MJ Participações — to J&F seven years ago. But only now, in November of this year, did he decide to question an alleged dilution of the stake in the company he sold in . He invoked urgent protection. Stábile gave . J&F's defense, which was not heard before the judge's decision, protested.
The Corporation Law provides a two-year period for this type of questioning. The forum contracted between the parties for dispute resolution is the city of São Paulo. And Mário Celso uses as author of the action a fund that was never a shareholder in Eldorado. MJ, a former shareholder of Eldorado, was acquired by J&F with its rights and obligations, so that only the new owner of the company could claim Honduras Mobile Number List any rights — against herself, in this case. Stábile states in his decision that the competent forum must be the city where Eldorado would have its headquarters, Três Lagoas (MS). In real life, the company's headquarters, which is not a party to the action, is in São Paulo — just like J&F. The factory is located in Três Lagoas.
The decision also does not explain the reason for the urgent protection, since the only fact at the moment surrounding the matter is Paper Excellence's attempt to take control of Eldorado, something that, in theory, should not worry the judge. For two experts interviewed, the judge's decision to recognize provisional rights to avoid damage due to a transaction made in is absolutely innovative. With his order, Stábile revoked the decision of the 4th Civil Court of Três Lagoas. For judge Márcio Rogério Alves, the time lapse between the operation intended to be annulled and the filing of the action rules out the alleged urgency. Alves also considered the granting of emergency relief “before allowing the adversarial process and procedural instruction” to be reckless. The judge highlighted that the legislation does not allow for the anticipation of protection in the case in question.
The Corporation Law provides a two-year period for this type of questioning. The forum contracted between the parties for dispute resolution is the city of São Paulo. And Mário Celso uses as author of the action a fund that was never a shareholder in Eldorado. MJ, a former shareholder of Eldorado, was acquired by J&F with its rights and obligations, so that only the new owner of the company could claim Honduras Mobile Number List any rights — against herself, in this case. Stábile states in his decision that the competent forum must be the city where Eldorado would have its headquarters, Três Lagoas (MS). In real life, the company's headquarters, which is not a party to the action, is in São Paulo — just like J&F. The factory is located in Três Lagoas.
The decision also does not explain the reason for the urgent protection, since the only fact at the moment surrounding the matter is Paper Excellence's attempt to take control of Eldorado, something that, in theory, should not worry the judge. For two experts interviewed, the judge's decision to recognize provisional rights to avoid damage due to a transaction made in is absolutely innovative. With his order, Stábile revoked the decision of the 4th Civil Court of Três Lagoas. For judge Márcio Rogério Alves, the time lapse between the operation intended to be annulled and the filing of the action rules out the alleged urgency. Alves also considered the granting of emergency relief “before allowing the adversarial process and procedural instruction” to be reckless. The judge highlighted that the legislation does not allow for the anticipation of protection in the case in question.