In the previous article, we discussed the measures that can be taken by startups to protect their intellectual capital and the strategic information of their businesses by means confidentiality obligations and obligations relating to intellectual property.

There is much discussion today regarding the best ways to decommission, to deactivate, the rigs used in the oil and gas exploration and production process, as most of them are approaching or are already at the end of their useful life.

With their publication in the Official Federal Gazette last September 10, 33 precedents approved at the en banc meeting of the Superior Chamber of Tax Appeals (CSRF) of the Administrative Council for Tax Appeals (Carf), held in early September, entered into force. Publication of the minutes of the meeting marks the entry into force of the precedents approved.

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).

Resolution No. 4,751 of the National Monetary Council (CMN), issued on September 26, regulated the possibility of settlement through redemption and offer of redemption of debentures supported by Law No. 12,431/11, which deals with raising funds for infrastructure investment projects. This scenario was prohibited under the terms of subsection II of the sole paragraph of article 1 of that law.

Recent environmental accidents in Brazil have generated intense legislative debates, including with respect to changes to the law that establishes the elements of environmental crimes. On June 25 of this year, the Chamber of Deputies approved Bill No. 2,787/19 (PL 2,787/19),[1] which, among other provisions, establishes the elements of the crime of ecocide. The main justification for approving the text was that criminal law on disasters of this type supposedly still proves to be fragile.