The office presents, in this area, a few cases in which it acted, which because of their characteristics, illustrate the firm’s specialty and form of action.
- In an arbitration procedure involving discussion of a purely contractual issue, the office was successful in arguing about the theory of the basis and spirit of the negotiation, avoiding that the literality of the contractual text should prevail over the intention of the contracting parties, thus preventing the charge of values adding up to a large amount;
- In this same procedure, the prejudiciality relationship between the arbitration procedure and an execution action previously filed was discussed, and acknowledgment of the competence of the arbitrators to decide the issue sub judice was successfully obtained, as well as suspension of the legal proceeding until final solution of the suit under arbitration. This case ended up becoming an important precedent at the national level;
- In an arbitration procedure involving the transportation of a concrete plant to Brazil, successfully obtaining the acknowledgment of the price agreed by the parties in a context in which the Contract was imperfect in this respect, and the agreement to which had been made by reference and by electronic means;
- In an execution action involving a company in judicial recovery, the office was successful in the request for attachment of the billing, despite the special situation which the debtor was going through, which ended up by providing a quicker solution for the creditor;
- In a very particular, paradigmatic and isolated case, in which a teratologic judgment caused the extinction of a proceeding without resolution of the merit, and after the client’s authorization, the office was successful in annulling the decision by means of an interlocutory appeal, which in a first approach is forbidden by procedure law, but was used in view of some particularities inherent to the situation of the proceeding, and in which the thesis concerning the instrumentality of the forms was widely debated and accepted;
- In a social security tax execution action, the responsibility of the commercial officer and vice-president of the debtor company was averted, the Court having accepted the argument already dominant, but instable, in the Superior Court of Justice that the disregard theory only applies in cases of malice and personal benefit of the company, the burden of proof of which is the responsibility of the Treasury;
- In an execution action brought against a company in a situation of judicial recovery and its joint debtor partners, the executive procedure against the guarantors was maintained, and it was acknowledged that they do not benefit from the suspension referred to in the heading of article 6º of Law nº 11.101/2005;
- In a suit of administrative improbity, the responsibility of an employee who had acted within the limits of legality was averted, despite grounds for discussion and doubt concerning the efficacy of acts practiced in view of the harm to an environmental asset. A thesis much discussed in the scope of the Superior Court of Justice, the argument that it is not any purported illegality that characterizes the improbity was accepted, as well as that malice is a subjective element that must contribute to the configuration of the illegal act for the purposes of Law nº 8.429/92.
- The office deals with cases involving CPR (rural commoditie bills); it defends a very well known trading company that acts strongly and wordwide in this market, and obtained success on all law suits filed with the aim of take the product illegaly retained by producers, or, furthermore, sold to third parties that, in view of the nature of the contract and it´s erga omnes effects, shall respect it in all it terms and conditions