The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Anglo are "intending to receive amounts related to a service agreement". I can't see any amounts listed for what they are claiming. Possibly they will try to appeal to have some unsecured debts added to the creditors list. It does seem there has been a lot of action in the courts recently so hopefully all will be coming to completion very soon.
Monocratic decision
SPECIAL RESOURCE No. 1762931 - AP (2018/0221438-5)
RAPPORTEUR: MINISTER MOURA RIBEIRO
APPELLANT: ANGLO FERROUS BRAZIL PARTICIPACOES S.A.
LAWYERS: LUIZ EDUARDO LESSA SILVA AND OTHER(S) - RJ032868 RODRIGO PONCE BUENO - RJ104782 ALEXANDRE EMILIO MARTINS AMARAL - AP001532A TATHYANA FROES DIOGO - RJ208650
APPEAL: AC SOARES SANTOS
LAWYER: NILDO JOSUÉ PONTES LEITE AND OTHER(S) - AP000118
INTEREST : DEV MINERACAO S.A. - UNDER JUDICIAL REORGANIZATION IN
JUDICIAL RECOVERY
OTHER NAME: ZAMIN AMAPA MINERACAO S.A.
MENU
CIVIL. CIVIL PROCEDURE SPECIAL RESOURCE. RESOURCE
MANAGED UNDER THE AEGIDE OF THE NCPC. MONITORING ACTION.
INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. OMISSIONS. OFFENSE TO ART. 1,022
OF NCPC CONFIGURED. OMISSIONS. SPECIAL RESOURCE
PROVIDED.
DECISION
From the reading of the draft of the interlocutory appeal that gave rise to the present
appeal, it can be inferred that AC SOARES SANTOS - ME (AC SOARES) filed a lawsuit
monitoring against MMX AMAPÁ MINERAÇÃO LTDA. currently called ZAMIN
AMAPÁ MINERAÇÃO S.A. (ZAMIN AMAPÁ), intending to receive
amounts related to the service provision contract signed between the parties.
The action was upheld.
Initiated the execution of sentence, the d. Court of first instance effective
the judicial constriction by the online attachment of the current account balance, through the
Bacenjud system, from the company ANGLO FERROUS BRAZIL PARTICIPAÇÕES S.A.
(ANGLO FERROUS), in view of having been appointed as a partner company of
executed ZAMIN AMAPÁ.
In an interlocutory decision, the 1st degree court determined the immediate
return of the constrained amounts, considering that in the 44th contractual amendment of this,
the company ZAMIN AMAPÁ succeeded him; determined that ZAMIN AMAPÁ proves the date of publication of the decision of the Court of the 2nd Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganization Court; as well as that all constraints fall on the assets of the company ZAMIN AMAPÁ and its subsidiaries.
Against this interlocutory decision, AC SOARES filed an interlocutory appeal that was provided by the State Court pursuant to the judgment as amended:
CIVIL PROCEDURE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. ANALYSIS ACCORDING TO 1973 CPC. DECISION AMENDING THE CONTENTS OF MERIT OF THE JUDGMENT. IMPOSSIBILITY. ABSENCE OF LEGAL PROVISION. SOCIAL CHANGE. FULL TRANSFER OF CORPORATE SHARES. MAINTENANCE OF LIABILITY FOR LIABILITIES. PROVISION OF THE APPEAL. 1) In accordance with Administrative Statement No. 2 of the Superior Court of Justice, in appeals filed against decisions published up to March 17, 2016, the admissibility requirements must be demanded as provided for in CPC/1973; 2) A decision that, in compliance with a sentence, alters the content of the latter, outside of the cases provided for by law, violates the principles of the inalterability of the sentence and legal certainty, and is therefore subject to appeal. STJ precedents; 3) The social change of the appellee does not have the power to release it from previous debts, especially when the debt vindicated originated prior to that change, with the former remaining responsible for the liability; 4) Known and granted appeal (e-STJ, fl. 268).
The motions for clarification opposed by ANGLO FERROUS were rejected (e-STJ, pages 277/283).
Unresigned, ANGLO FERROUS filed a special appeal based on art. 105, III, a, of the CF, alleging the violation of arts. 485, VI, §§ 3 and 7, 505 and 1,022, II of the NCPC; and 50 and 1032 of CC/02, by sustaining (1) lack of reasoning and denial of jurisdictional provision, as the State Court failed to consider the arguments supporting its thesis that it does not hold responsibility for the debt contracted by ZAMIN AMAPÁ, which would rule out the obligation to pay debt contracted by a legal entity of an economic group to which it was not a part; (2) inexistence of evidential evidence of the subjective element of the patrimonial confusion or of the misuse of purpose to give rise to the liability of the partners resulting from the disregard of the legal personality; and (3) need to release the amounts unduly pledged (e-STJ, pages 314/383).
The counterarguments were presented (e-STJ, pages 387/399).
The noble appeal admitted (e-STJ, pages 285/289)
It's the report.
DECIDE.
The special feature deserves to thrive.
In terms of plan, it is worth noting that the provisions of the NCPC, with regard to the admissibility requirements of resources, are applicable to the specific case under the terms of Administrative Statement No. 3, approved by the STJ Plenary at the session of 3/9/2016:
Appeals filed based on CPC/2015 (relating to decisions published as of March 18, 2016) will be subject to the appeal admissibility requirements in the form of the new CPC.
(1) Denial of jurisdictional provision
The TJAP, when analyzing the motion for clarification, incurred in omissions related to the arguments supporting its thesis that it does not hold responsibility for the debt contracted by ZAMIN AMAPÁ, which would rule out the obligation to pay the debt contracted by a legal entity of an economic group of which it does not was part of.
It is a sine qua non for the knowledge of the special that the question of law mentioned in the appeal reasons has been analyzed by the appealed judgment.
Thus, the TJAP refusing to comment on federal issues ended up denying jurisdictional provision to the Appellant.
By the way:
SPECIAL RESOURCE. APPEAL JUDGMENT WHICH DID NOT REFERENCE TO A RELEVANT POINT FOR THE UNFOLDING OF THE CONTROVERSY. OFFENSE TO ART. 535 CONFIGURED. TIMELINESS OF THE SPECIAL RESOURCE. REGULARITY. 1. Even though the judgment under appeal dismissed the preliminary arguments raised by the appellant one by one, it silenced the fundamental point of the unwinding of the dispute on the merits, that is, the debtor's default, despite being urged to do so in the context of motion for clarification, which characterizes a violation of art. 535, II, of the CPC. 2. Interlocutory appeal not provided.
Class, judged on 6/21/2012, DJe 6/28/2012)
Therefore, the return of the records to the ordinary court is a measure of rigor to remedy the aforementioned defect.
The analysis of other issues is impaired.
In view of the foregoing, I APPROVE the special appeal, determining the
return of the case file to the TJAP to analyze the issues raised in the motion for clarification, as it sees fit.
As appropriate, I warn the parties that the filing of an appeal against this decision, if declared manifestly inadmissible, delaying or unfounded, may result in the condemnation of the penalties established in arts. 1.021, §4 or 1,026, § 2, both from the NCPC.
Publish yourself. Intimate yourselves.
Brasilia, June 14, 2021.
Minister MOURA RIBEIRO
Reporter
@Bannor - The previous rulings have some interesting information about the sale from AAF or Zamin. O.O
anglo managed to get an appeal through for review…
bannor/ spell it out then?