In 2013, shortly after scandals involving the manipulation of exchange rates and interest rates became public, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) published a report in response to a consultation on rules applicable to financial benchmarks. Not surprisingly, concerns were raised about the fragility of certain benchmarks, particularly in terms of integrity and continuity.

Law No. 13,467/2017, known as the Labor Reform, has been in force for more than a year, but, to date, not all of the amendments it proposed to the Consolidated Labor Laws (CLT) have been reviewed by the Labor Courts. This is the case for the exceptions to salary equalization, such as organized career frameworks and job and salary plans.

The Labor Reform (Law No. 13,467/17) brought in various changes to labor law, especially from the point of view of collective rights. One of the most significant issues was the interest shown by the legislator in promoting collective autonomy, whereby it established, among other assumptions, prevalence of what is negotiated over what is legislated and a limitation on accrued rights, with the end of the applicability of collective rules after their abrogation, as previously supported by the case law.[1]

Individuals and legal entities resident, domiciled or with headquarters in Brazil, as provided for in tax law, must report to the Central Bank of Brazil the assets and amounts held by them outside the country.

When the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided at the end of last year to reinstate the bank freeze, or fiduciary assignment of receivables, which had been suspended by the court in a judicial reorganization case, it took into account the concept of capital goods provided for in article 49, paragraph 3, of the Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Law (Law No. 11,101/2005, the “LRF”).

Effective since January of 2014, the Anti-Corruption Law (Law No. 12,846/13) has built a legacy of changes in corporate culture over the past five years. The scenario today is very different from the one observed at the beginning of its enactment, when corruption risks seemed far from the corporate reality, and companies still saw megaoperations of the Federal Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office as episodes restricted to political agents.