The principle of legal certainty is one of the underpinnings of the rule of law. It could not be otherwise, as it is because of it that society can trust that the rules of the game will not be changed during the course of its activities and the legal transactions entered into.
With the consolidation of the use of arbitration by the Federal Government as an alternative, and often preferable, means for the Judiciary to settle disputes, several normative acts have been issued over the last years to recognize and regulate the use of this mechanism to settle conflicts relating to alienable property rights.
The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) assigned the judgment of Special Appeal No. 1.797.924/MT to the Second Chamber of the court on October 10. The discussion revolves around the continuation of lawsuits and executions filed against jointly and severally liable debtors, when cancellation of the creditors' guarantees is provided for in the judicial reorganization plan.
When property owners decide to file an eviction action against tenants, all means of repossessing the property have generally been exhausted. This indicates the urgency that lessors have in obtaining a preliminary court order that the property be returned.
With the extinction of so many airlines in Brazil over the last 20 years, it is essential to conduct an analysis of the factors that led these companies to fail, one after the other, unable to reorganize financially in order to continue operating in the market.
One of the biggest controversies under the Company Judicial Reorganization Act (LRE) is the limit on the Judiciary's role in controlling the legality of the judicial reorganization plan. Recently, this discussion has gained another chapter. In deciding Special Appeal No. 1.630.932/SP, filed by a São Paulo company in judicial reorganization, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that the Referential Rate (TR) is valid as a criterion for correction of bankruptcy claims, if so approved by the creditors.
Signed by the President of the Republic on September 20, Executive Order No. 881/19, the Economic Freedom Executive Order, was converted into Law No. 13,874/19, instituting the Declaration of Rights of Economic Freedom, which establishes rules for the protection of free initiative and the free exercise of economic activity.
Law No. 9,307/96 (the Arbitration Law), which regulates arbitration in Brazil, has provided in its article 1, paragraph 1, since the changes introduced by Law No. 13,129/15, that the "direct and indirect public administration may use arbitration to settle disputes concerning alienable property rights."[1] It was already possible, therefore, to submit for arbitration disputes between private and public entities over compensation amounts due to an act of expropriation (which clearly concern alienable property rights).
Two ordinances amended the rules governing recall campaigns in Brazil earlier this half of the year. The standards modernize the regulations of the procedure imposed by the Consumer Protection Code (article 10, paragraphs 1 and 2) whenever the supplier becomes aware of the possibility of having introduced into the Brazilian market a product or service that poses a risk to the health or safety of the consumer.
The Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in two decisions in the first half of the year, made it clear that hotel operators may only be held liable for irregularities or damages in the offering of condo hotels if they participated actively in the efforts to sell the ideal fractions to buyers.
The Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) advanced to put an end to the controversy over the limitations period applicable to claims based on contractual civil liability. In a judgment last May 14, the Justices decided, by a majority vote (7x5), that the ten-year statute of limitations is what is appropriate in these cases.
On May 14, the Fourth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reaffirmed its understanding that the presence of the same parties is not necessary to give rise to lis pendens in collective actions in which a party with extraordinary standing appears due to procedural substitution.