deutsch-brasilianische industrie- und handelskammer • vol ... · ups’ investors, as provided...

RECHT & STEUERNNEWSLET TER

Deutsch-Brasil ianische Industrie- und Handelskammer • vol .2 • 2020

NEWSLET TERRECHT & STEUERN vol.2 • 2020

Inhalt • Index

I. Overview of Supplementary Bill 146/2019 Machado Associados

Mirella da Costa Andreola and Maria Eliana Pereira . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. The new Brazilian franchise law Sperling Advogados

Martyna Bolgar and Glauco Martins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Kumulierung von ICMS-Vorsteuerforderungen Stüssi-Neves Advogados

Patrícia Giacomin Pádua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

IV. The postponement of the Brazilian General Personal data protetion law in Brazil during the state of emergency of covid-19

Demarest AdvogadosTatiana Campello and Vanessa Ferro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

V. German Groups in Brazil and Renegotiation of Contracts Pacheco Neto Sanden Teisseire Advogados

Andreas Sanden and Juliana G. Meyer Gottardi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

VI. Restrictions on the Acquisition of Rural Lands by Foreigners and the Liberalization Brought by “Lei do Agro”

Sonia Marques Döbler AdvogadosSonia Marques Döbler and Fabiana Nitta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

VII. Potential flexibilization on Brazilian tax residency rules Rödl & Partner

Phillip Klose-Morero, Karen Steuer and Patricia Berbetz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

VIII. Update on restrictions regarding entrance of immigrants in Brazil

EMDOCRenê Ramos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

IX. Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor Office issues new guidelines on the negotiation of leniency and collaboration agreements in criminal investigations

Lefosse AdvogadosJosé Carlos Berardo, Ludmila Groch and Juliana Maia Daniel Pinheiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

NEWSLET TER

Deutsch-Brasil ianische Industrie- und Handelskammer || Deutsch-Brasil ianische Industrie- und Handelskammer 5 4

RECHT & STEUERN vol.2 • 2020

Overview of Supplementary Bill 146/2019

Startups have been globally recognized as an important tool to promote inno-vation, create jobs, new services and new products. They are also an important instrument to deal with emerging problems through innovative solutions.

Due to their specific characteristics, promoting startups business depends on entrepreneurial policies that support their growth, creating a favorable busi-ness environment, mainly because such businesses usually involve high-risks.

In the past few years, Brazil has adopted some measures to promote small busi-nesses, such as the legislative amendments provided by Law 13243/2016 and Supplementary Law 155/2016. Notwithstanding the implementation of these measures, there is no legal framework related to startups in particular.

In this context, Supplementary Bill 146/2019 (PLP 146/2019), called Civil Framework for Startups, aims to create an environment that promotes and stimulates the growth of startups. This project has a broad scope and intends to implement legislative amendments in several areas, including corporate, tax, civil and labor law.

In the corporate area, it is important to mention the proposal to create a special regime for a stock corporation called ‘Simplified Stock Corporation’(Sociedade Anônima Simplificada), which is also subject matter of other bills of law. In ad-dition, PLP 146/2019 authorizes stock corporations to adopt the Brazilian Sim-plified Taxation System (Simples Nacional), which is a favorable taxation regime that allows the payment of several taxes established by the Brazilian legislation by means of a single revenue payment form and usually offers taxation rates lower than other tax regimes, in addition to other legal simplicities.

If these provisions are approved, stock corporations classified as simplified may publish the documents and information required by the Brazilian Corporate Law online. Currently, stock corporations are not authorized to adopt the Simples Nacional and are under the obligation to publish certain documents and in-formation in two official journals (the official gazette and a widely circulated newspaper), which is expensive.

Therefore, if approved, this proposal will reduce costs and bureaucracy related to the incorporation of startups as stock corporations, stimulating the adoption of this corporate type. It is important to mention that corporations are more complex structures, which grant more options for their governance, and are usually preferred by certain investors.

Furthermore, PLP 146/2019 aims to clarify the acts that can be practiced by an-gel investors, proposing that advising and supervising a company that receives investments does not characterize as management. Currently, an angel inves-tor cannot be a partner or member of the administrative body of the invested company, and the advice of such angel investor is, as a rule, as beneficial to the company as the investment in capital.

PLP 146/2019 also intends to overcome the discussion of whether only the dis-regard of the corporate entity sets forth in the Civil Code would apply to start-ups’ investors, as provided for by Article 61-A of Supplementary Law 123/2016. In this sense, PL 146/2019 proposes that any disregard of the corporate entity existing in the Brazilian legislation will not apply to startups’ investors. Such risk is one of the major risks appointed by investors; therefore, this express exemp-tion would probably benefit investments in startups.

With regard to labor issues, PLP 146/2019 proposes the implementation of some exceptions to startups, in order to allow them, for instance, to hire em-ployees for definite term of 4 years, and probation contract for a maximum duration of 180 days, which are twice the length of time currently in force. In addition, PLP 146/2019 intends to authorize startups to pay their employees based on variable remuneration, including stock options.

In what refers to variable remuneration, PLP 146/2019 seems to intend to over-come an existing controversy in Brazil regarding the treatment of stock options, especially for tax purposes. Such controversy involves the discussion of whether the gains obtained based on stock option agreements arise from work or not, as the taxation is different for each case.

Regarding tax incentives, one of the main implementations proposed by PL 146/2019 is the taxation of the gain arising from investments in startups based on a regressive tax rate of 12.5% to 0%, according to the investment term. In the same sense, PLP 146/2019 proposes the deductibility of sponsorship and donation made to startups, by an individual or companies, subject to certain conditions. Additionally, PLP 146/2019 proposes that startups that adopt the estimated profit regime may exclude 60% of their expenses on technological research and development of technological innovation from the net profit.

In terms of financial support, PLP 146/2019 establishes the obligation for cer-tain banks, including public ones, to maintain credit facilities and interest rate to small companies and startups.

In conclusion, we understand that PLP 146/2019, in general, proposes import-ant and innovative measures to create an environment favorable to startups,

Machado AssociadosAv. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 1656 – 11º. andar01451-918 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3819 4855www.machadoassociados.com.br


Maria Eliana [email protected]

Mirella da Costa [email protected] (+55) 11 3093 5012

https://www.machadoassociados.com.br/pt/


NEWSLET TER



promoting and encouraging their growth. On the other hand, there are import-ant matters that were not included in the bill, especially regarding bureaucracy and simplification of procedures to obtain licenses and registrations.

Regarding tax-related proposals, it should be highlighted that, in addition to the implementations proposed by PLP 146/2019, an environment conducive to the growth of startups depends on the simplification of the tax system and tax reform, as recommended by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report 2019/20201.

1 GEM (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Global Report 2019/2020, p.88/89.


The new Brazilian franchise lawFranchises have great relevance in Brazilian economy. Pursuant to Brazilian Franchising Association (“Associação Brasileira de Franchising” - ABF), fran-chises have increased 6.8% in 2019, represent 2.6% of Brazil’s GDP and employ more than 1.36 million people. This sector has demonstrated to be a business with consistency and stability even in times of moderate economic growth and crisis. Such development arises from information sharing, which incorporates know-how, brand identity, and networking.

Considering the importance of this sector and the challenges faced by franchi-sees and franchisors in Brazil (mainly, due the judicialization of conflicts), a new Franchise Law has been recently enacted.

The main points of attention in discussions regarding the New Brazilian franchis-ing Law (Law no. 13.966/2019) relate, in sum, to the absence of the consumerist relation between franchisee and franchisor (article 1), the creation of a public model of franchise (article 1, §2°), limits for sublease, the recognition of the arbitration jurisdiction to solve disputes arisen from franchise business and its contracts, and, most importantly, the upgrade of the Franchise Offer Newsletter terms (“COF”, initials for “Circular de Oferta de Franquia”) a written document which establishes all the rules on the franchise partnership.

There is a concern in ascertain the legal nature of the relationship held be-tween franchisor and franchisee, which is entirely contractual – not an em-ployment or consumerist one. This is due to a former debate over Brazilian courts, which overcame on a Superior Court of Justice precedent that warded off the applicability of Consumer’s Code – which was commonly asserted by franchisees on disputes – in order to weight off franchisors and equalize the commercial relation.

The new Franchise Law also sets forth that the franchisor must be the trade-mark holder before the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office and, likewise, the franchising business model can apply to private, state-owned or non-profit companies.

Another great aspect concerns to COF’s enhancement. Such document, writ-ten in Portuguese and drafted by the franchisor must demonstrate and stress several terms in clear parlance to the franchisee, at nullity and voidability’s risk against the franchisor.

The new franchise law has brought a novelty to determine that COF mentions and deals with territorial competition between owned and franchised units and also to indicate what is offered to the franchisee by the franchisor and under

Sperling AdvogadosAv. 9 de Julho, 4.939, 6º andarTorre Jardim – 01407-200Jardim Paulista – São Paulo/SPT (+55) 11 3704 0788www.sperling.adv.br

Martyna [email protected]

Glauco [email protected] (+55) 11 3704 0780M (+55) 11 96800 1702


https://sperling.adv.br/

NEWSLET TER



determined conditions, such as support; network supervision; services; embod-iment of technological innovations; training of the franchisee and his employ-ees, specifying duration, content and costs; franchise handbook; assistance in analyzing and choosing the franchise’s position; and both layout and architec-tural standards.

Intellectual property rights are also approached in COF, in a proper topic, ac-cording to article 2, XIV, of Law No. 13.966/2019, which sets forth that franchi-sors must inform about the franchisee registry of the branch and other issues before Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office.

Concerning the lease and sublease occurrence, the legislator wisely outlined new rules which ensure a fair lease payment (mandatorily informed on the COF) which does not imply excessive burden to the franchisee, also sublessee. Article 3º establishes that, in case the franchisor subleases the property to the franchi-see, both of them are able to request the renewal of the lease.

With respect to franchise contracts, the Law establishes that their effect shall exclusively prevail in Brazil if written in Portuguese and guided under Brazilian Provisions. In this context, contracts of international franchises will be written in Portuguese or sworn translated by the franchisor. Furthermore, pursuant to article 7°, §1º, parties are able to appoint an arbitration court to solve disputes arisen from the franchise contract.

It is important to bear in mind that the enactment of the new Brazilian Fran-chise Law has brought a new perspective for preventing conflicts and contrib-uted to the reduction of judicialization, as well as to deepen the relationship between franchisee and franchisor to solidify the expansion of franchise busi-ness in Brazil.

Sperling AdvogadosAv. 9 de Julho, 4.939, 6º andarTorre Jardim – 01407-200Jardim Paulista – São Paulo/SPT (+55) 11 3704 0788www.sperling.adv.br

Patrícia Giacomin Pádua [email protected] (+55) 11 3093 6624M (+55) 11 98353 1324

Stüssi-Neves Advogados*Rua Henrique Monteiro, 90 -10o andar05423-020 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3093 6600F (+55) 11 3097 9130www.stussi-neves.com

Kumulierung von ICMS- VorsteuerforderungenDie Warenverkehrssteuer - ICMS ist eine Landessteuer, die auf die unterschied-lichen Etappen des produktiven Prozesses von Waren erhoben wird (Multipha-sen). Dabei kann die in einer Operation abgeführte Steuer mit der Steuer der darauffolgenden Operation verrechnet verwendet werden (d.h. sie ist nicht ku-mulativ).

Es kann zu einer Kumulierung von Vorsteuerforderungen kommen, wenn die als Vorsteuern gezahlten Beträge, die auf die nachfolgenden Operationen anfallen-den Steuern übersteigen, was bspw. bei niedrigeren Steuersätzen, Steuerbefrei-ungen, Stundungen oder Nichtbesteuerung der nachfolgenden Operation der Fall sein kann, wie etwa beim Export.

Die Kumulierung von ICMS-Vorsteuerforderungen wuchs im Jahr 2013. Zu die-ser wurde im Rahmen von Maßnahmen zur Minimierung des „Steuerkrieges” auf den Warenverkehr zwischen Bundesländern bei importierten Produkten) bzw. Produkten, deren importierter Teil 40% übersteigt) und die bei ihrem Eintreffen in den Niederlassungen oft mit einem ICMS-Satz von 18% besteuert wurden, ein ICMS-Satz von 4% festgelegt.

Die Nutzung des entstehenden Saldos der ICMS-Vorsteuerforderungen war für die Unternehmen stets komplex, weil die Bundesländer eine Erstattung von Be-trägen in Geld oft nicht erlaubten und andere Formen der Nutzung stets der Autorisierung des Landesfinanzamtes bedürfen.

Im Bundesland São Paulo bspw. muss der Betrag der beabsichtigten Vorsteu-erforderung zunächst im Rahmen der Berechnungssysteme, die die effektiven oder geschätzten Kosten demonstrieren, angemeldet werden. Erst nach der Feststellung der Vorsteuerforderung kann dann der Antrag auf Anerkennung der Vorsteuerforderungen gestellt werden, die auf Dritte übertragen oder für die Zahlung der in den Importoperationen geschuldeten Steuern genutzt wer-den können.

In Kenntnis der Schwierigkeiten der Anerkennung und Nutzung dieser Vorsteu-erforderungen haben die Bundesländer zwecks Vermeidung der konstanten Ku-mulierung von Vorsteuerforderungen bzw. deren Minimierung unterschiedliche Sonderregelungen für spezifische Fälle getroffen.

Im Bundesland São Paulo kann die Kumulierung der durch die unterschiedlichen auf Importe geltenden Steuersätze und den Warenverkehr zwischen Bundeslän-dern in Höhe von 4% die Voraussetzungen für einen Antrag auf die Einräumung

https://sperling.adv.br/

http://www.stussi-neves.com/

NEWSLET TER



Stüssi-Neves Advogados*Rua Henrique Monteiro, 90 -10o andar05423-020 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3093 6600F (+55) 11 3097 9130www.stussi-neves.com

der Sonderregelung mit der teilweisen oder vollständigen Suspendierung der beim Import geschuldeten Steuern schaffen. Der beantragte Prozentsatz kann gemäss der Eigenheiten der Operation zwischen 40%, 75%, 80% variieren und sogar 100% betragen.

Im Bundesland São Paulo gibt es eine Vorschrift der neuen Sonderregelung für die Aussetzung der auf den Import von Rohstoffen, Zwischenprodukten und Verpackungsmaterialien anfallenden ICMS nach dessen Industrialisierung (Er-lass CAT Nr. 24/2020). Voraussetzung für diese Suspendierung ist neben dem fortgesetzten Gläubigersaldo bzw. dem Nachweis seiner Kumulierung das Ent-laden und die Zollfreigabe auf dem Gebiet des Bundeslandes São Paulo. Außer-dem darf es keine vergleichbaren nationalen Produkte bzw. keine ausreichende nationale Produktion der importierten Waren geben.

Unternehmen, die einen Antrag auf Einräumung der Sonderregelung gestellt haben, können gerichtliche Schritte auf unverzügliche Prüfung einleiten, falls diese nicht innerhalb von 120 (einhundertzwanzig) Tagen abgeschlossen wird.

Unabhängig von dem Antrag auf Einräumung der Sonderregelung besteht, hauptsächlich aufgrund der aktuellen Krise, die Möglichkeit, bei den Gerichten einen Antrag auf die unverzügliche Nutzung der ICMS-Vorsteuerforderungen zu stellen. Voraussetzung dafür ist u.a. der Nachweis ihrer Kumulierung.

*Author of the publication So geht's Ihr Einstieg in Brasilien and So geht's Arbeitsrecht in Brasilien

Demarest Advogados*Av. Pedroso de Moraes, 120105419-001 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3356 1800F (+55) 11 3356 1700www.demarest.com.br

Vanessa [email protected] (+55) 11 3356 1821

Tatiana Campello [email protected] (+55) 21 3723 9851

The postponement of the Brazilian General Personal Data Protection Law in Brazil during the state of emergency of Covid-19

Brazilian Law No. 14,010/20201 postponed the sanctions established in the Brazilian General Personal Data Protection Law No. 13,709/2018 (the “LGPD”) from August 20202 to August 1st, 20213. This occurred during the unprecedent-ed crisis caused by the Novel Coronavirus pandemic that has been producing multiple impacts worldwide that transcends the more obvious (and serious) concern about public health and peoples’ lives. As a result of the pandemic, multiple governmental and legislative measures4 have been adopted in Brazil to deal with such a challenging environment. This is no different under the privacy and data protection scenario.

It is important to underline that individuals’ intimacy, private life, honor and image are guaranteed by the Brazilian Federal Constitution.

In this context, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) suspended5 the effectiveness of Provisional Measure 954/2020, which provided for the mandatory delivery, by telecommunications service providers, of their consumers’ names, phone numbers and addresses, to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). The purpose of such measure was the production of statistical data, during the public health emergency of the Covid-19 pandemic.

1 Brazilian Law No. 14,010/2020 establishes transitional and emergency rules for the regulation of private law legal relations during the Covid-19 pandemic period, including the extension of the LGPD’s entry into force.2 Under the most conservative approach, it will enter into force in August 15, 2020.3 Draft Bill No. 1179/2020 establishes transitional and emergency rules for the regulation of pri-vate law legal relations during the Covid-19 pandemic period, including the extension of the LG-PD’s entry into force.4 Draft Bill of Law No. 2,136/2020 issued late April, 2020 provides for the virtual visit, through video calls, of family members to inpatients due to the Novel Coronavirus, just to mention one of the most recent legislative initiatives under discussion in the Brazilian Congress.5 The decision was rendered in the files of Direct Unconstitutionality Actions filed by political par-ties and the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) attacking Provisional Measure 954/2020.

http://www.stussi-neves.com/

https://www.demarest.com.br/

NEWSLET TER



6 The measures provided for in the National Quarantine Law came into force on the date of its publication, on February 6, 2020, and will remain in force as long as the international state of emergency by Coronavirus persists.7 MP 959/2020 also regulates the operationalization of the payment of the Emergency Employ-ment and Income Preservation Benefit and the monthly emergency benefit for Brazilians during the state of emergency period.8 Under this context, the following scenarios may arise: (i) if MP 959/2020 is converted into law, the LGPD will enter into force on May 3, 2021 and the sanctions on August 1. 2021; (ii) if MP 959/2020 is not converted into law, the LGPD will enter into force in August, 2020 and its sanc-tions will enter into force on August, 2021; or (iii) if MP 959/2020 is amended by the Brazilian Congress, the scenarios above can still change.

Apart from the cancelled Provisional Measure 954/2020, on February 6, 2020, Brazilian Law No. 13,979/2020 (the “National Quarantine Law”) was published to establish measures to deal with the public health emergency of the Novel Coronavirus, such as6: (a) compulsory medical examinations, laboratory tests; (b) communication to health authorities about possible contacts with the Novel Coronavirus infectious agents and circulation in areas considered to be regions contaminated by the virus; (c) mandatory sharing between government agen-cies and entities of Public Administration of data for the identification of per-sons infected or suspected of being infected with the Novel Coronavirus, etc.

All these multiple initiatives involving the processing of personal data in large scale in the pandemic environment have been occurring while the LGPD has not entered into force yet and the sanctions for its non-compliance have now been postponed to next year. The LGPD defines health data as sensitive person-al data, subject to restricted legal basis for processing, such as (a) by data sub-jects’ consent; (b) conducting studies by a research body; (c) health tutelage, exclusively, in a procedure performed by health professionals, health services or health authority; and (d) protection of the life or physical safety of the data subject or third party.

In addition to the postponement of the LGPD’s sanctions to August 1st, 2020 through Law No. 14,010/2020, Provisional Measure 959/2020 (“MP 959/2020)7 was approved extending the entry into force of the other provisions of the LGPD to May 3, 2021. The initial term of validity of provisional measures is 60 days, automatically extended for an equal period, if the Brazilian Congress do not complete the voting process. As a result, until August 27, 2020, the Provi-sional Measure may be enacted and converted into an ordinary law or rejected and, therefore, shelved.

Therefore, it will be necessary to await to see if MP 959/2000 will be converted into law, amended or shelved at the Brazilian Congress. It is still possible that the other provisions of the LGPD enter into force this year8.


It is worth mentioning that there will be a high level of legal uncertainty if MP 959/2020 expires at the end of its 120 days9 on August 27, 2020. After all, in such case, there will be an interregnum between the date the LGPD was origi-nally expected to come into force and August 27th of 2020. In such case, the acts practiced by the processing agents during this period in relation to personal data would need to be disciplined via legislative decree.

After all the above-mentioned, even though the efforts for complying with the LGPD requirements will sum up to the manifold challenging situations that com-panies are struggling to handle with simultaneously, it is advisable to keep mov-ing forward with the steps required to be compliant with the LGPD. Organizations shall face the postponement of the sanctions of the LGPD as an opportunity to adapt its privacy policies and, mainly, its business practices, adopting data pro-tection and the security of its customers as a standard that will resonate as an extremely valuable competitive advantage.

*Author of the publication So geht’s Tax Incentives in Brasilien


9 Provisional measures can be extended for additional 60 days period if they are not voted within the first 60 days initial term.



NEWSLET TER



German Groups in Brazil and Renegotiation of Contracts Since the beginning of the year and more strongly since March, our law firm has been following up the strategies of several clients on how to proceed in these challenging months in view of the pandemic that has spread across the globe.

When, in February, some German groups were already drawing up contain-ment plans for Brazilian branches due to COVID-19, it may have seemed an exaggerated measure at the time. However, it was later proved that the Ger-man cultural practice of “planning” and “saving resources” made, is making and will make a huge difference in this difficult time for the vast majority of industries and services.

In general, the aforementioned strategies were divided into stages, depending on the financial strength and the profile of each group, among other factors.

The first stage included directing the entire staff or a substantial part of the staff to work from home, adjusting internal policies and employment contracts ac-cordingly, and renegotiating all other kinds of commercial contracts, whose con-ditions were impacted by the pandemic. Subsequently, some groups required their employees to take their annual leave, both overdue or not yet due, or holiday entitlement as paid time off. In a third stage, the suspension of employ-ment contracts and/or the reduction of working hours and wages were options considered. Finally, as a last resort, some groups had to reduce staff and even cease operations locally. All groups used the first stage. Fortunately, only a few used the two other options.

This article is also intended to share our views regarding specifically the renego-tiation of contracts, in the light of the various negotiations that we have been involved in combination with the decisions of lawsuits involving COVID-19, ren-dered by the main Brazilian courts.

Please note that companies have stronger arguments to request and be able to renegotiate their contracts the more of the following items applies:

a) they have a long-term contract with their business partners party, with suc-cessive and continuous installments; b) up to the time of the pandemic they had not faltered any of their obligations; c) they are, in fact, facing an unfore-seen and unexpected situation (those that, for example, entered into a con-tract in early 2020 have less of a case as the threat posed by the coronavirus was already known or likely to be known worldwide); d) they are indeed and evidently facing significant negative impact on their business; e) in respect of their business partner, some of the benefits have become excessively ex-

Pacheco Neto Sanden Teisseire Advogados*Al. Franca, 1050 - 10º e 11º andar 01422-001 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3897 4400 / 3063 6177F (+55) 11 3063 6176www.pnst.com.br

Juliana G. Meyer Gottardi [email protected]

Andreas Sanden [email protected]


pensive with the changes in the post-pandemic scenario; f) they have taken or are taking all reasonable measures to mitigate their damages (e.g. it is un-reasonable to seek renegotiation if they have not yet eliminated unnecessary expenses); and g) the contract to be renegotiated contains clauses providing that events of force majeure and excessive burden are grounds for release of obligations or renegotiation.

The occurrence of the pandemic, however, in itself, is neither a reason nor an excuse for non-compliance with obligations. Nor are the risks inherent in or re-lated to the contract itself, exchange rate changes, inflation, economic crises, an increase in the government debt and the increase in rates. This is the prevailing understanding of Brazilian court precedents, which was even ratified in Bill No. 1179/20, which provided for the emergency and transitory legal regime of legal relations governed by private law in the period of the pandemic precisely to avoid excessive litigation. It was, however, ultimately vetoed in the final wording of Law No. 14010/20.

Notwithstanding whatever the angle, we understand that settling the matter out of court between the parties is, in the vast majority of cases, the best option.

In a renegotiation, the possibilities for a new agreement are many, such as: grace period, postponement and payment in installments, remission of part of the debt overdue or not yet due, reduction of amounts forward with or without subse-quent offsetting, request for guarantees and extended contractual term. It is bet-ter that the parties themselves, who are well aware of the relationship and the facts, decide what to do and, accordingly, will already know in advance what ob-ligations they will assume.

By taking formal legal action, in addition to a slow and costly process, it will be up to a third-party, who is unfamiliar with the parties or the situation in hand, to decide what the parties must do. A judgment may be better than an out-of-court settlement, it is true. However, it might as well be much worse. It is also true that, unfortunately, some claims are settled only when one party decides to sue the other. This is the last of the alternatives, but please note that it is a good alterna-tive for a party that is entitled and finds the other contractual party unwilling to settle the claim.

And looking ahead, among the many lessons that the pandemic has taught us, is the necessity of a more detailed set of clauses about what is force majeure and what are the consequences in this case. It is worthwhile for the parties to invest a few hours drafting and negotiating a substantial clause to avoid long discus-sions later. Fortuitous event and force majeure clauses, which by default are short and include broad terms such as “acts of nature” or “acts of God” should be bet-ter detailed by expressly mentioning, for example, that “pandemic”, “diseases”,

https://www.pnst.com.br/


NEWSLET TER



“plague”, “epidemic” are or may be events of force majeure and what exactly will happen, should any occur. In addition, the importance of defining dispute resolu-tion procedures has increased and which law will be applicable and the jurisdic-tion chosen by the parties because the interpretation of what is force majeure varies between cities, states and countries.

Even before the pandemic, official data showed that Germany is the main trading partner of Brazil in Europe and the fourth leading global partner. In 2018, trade exchanges amounted to US$ 15.7 billion, with Brazilian exports in the amount of US$ 5.2 billion and imports of US$ 10.5 billion. Exports concentrated on ores, coffee, soy bran, vehicle engines and their parts. Imports were mainly medicines, parts and pieces for vehicles, automobiles, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and elec-trical equipment.

We hope, therefore, that in the not too distant future the commercial partnership between Brazil and Germany remains stable and perhaps increase and that con-tractual negotiations will take a more positive note such as opening of branches in Brazil, remitting profits to the head office, purchasing and selling of new equip-ment and services and so on. Crises always come to an end.


*Author of the publication So geht’s die Limitada in Brasilien

Sonia Marques Döbler AdvogadosRua Dona Maria Paula, 12319º andar - Edifício Main Offices01319-001 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3105 7823F (+55) 11 3105-5540www.dobler.com.br

Sonia Marques Döbler [email protected] (+55) 11 94492 1142

Fabiana Nitta [email protected] (+55) 11 94492 4494

Restrictions on the Acquisition of Rural Lands by Foreigners and the Liberalization Brought by “Lei do Agro”

1. Introduction

The restrictions on the ownership of rural lands by foreigners in Brazil have been firstly governed by Law No. 5,079/71, further regulated by Decree No. 74,965/74 (“Law No. 5,079/71”), which is still in force, without making any dis-tinction between the foreign companies and the Brazilian companies controlled by foreigners1. This has been object of different interpretations along the years, which has undeniably brought a sense of insecurity in terms of property-rights, in Brazil.

Among the restrictions imposed by Law No. 5,709/71, we can mention the fol-lowing:

(i) Foreign legal entities can only acquire rural lands for the purposes of farm-ing, cattle-raising and industrial or colonization projects, and such projects must be specified in the company’s by-laws and submitted to INCRA’s autho-rization;

(ii) Legal limit of 25% of land in the same county owned by foreign individu-als, foreign companies and/or Brazilian companies of foreign capital;

(iii) Legal limit of 10% of land in the same county owned by foreign individ-uals, foreign companies and/or Brazilian companies of foreign capital of the same nationality;

(iv) Rural land parcels that are of a size greater than 100 indefinite explo-ration modules (“módulos de exploração indefinida”) require Brazilian Con-gressional approval.

Exceptionally, the President of Brazil may authorize the acquisition of rural lands beyond the legal limitations when there is relevant interest on the project for the Brazilian economy.

1 Art. 1, §1 of Law 5,709/1971 expressly establishes that “(…) the Brazilian company in which for-eign individuals or entities have control of the corporate capital, by any means, are also subject to the regime established by this Law (…)”


http://www.dobler.com.br/

NEWSLET TER



Recently, it was enacted Law No. 13,986/20, nicknamed Lei do Agro, on Apr. 7, 2020, which has brought more flexibility for the foreign companies and Brazilian companies with foreign capital to become owners of rural lands in Brazil. This will be better explored in Chapter 4, below.

2. Brazilian Companies with Foreign Capital x Foreign Companies

Art. 171 of the Brazilian Constitution made a clear differentiation between Bra-zilian companies (the ones domiciled in Brazil) and Brazilian companies of do-mestic capital (the ones domiciled in Brazil with national capital only). This de-rived from the constitutional principles of national sovereignty and guarantee of national development.

With the enactment of Constitutional Amendment No. 6/95, which revoked art. 171, such distinction ceased to exist and, provided that a Brazilian legal en-tity is domiciled in this country, it will be considered as a Brazilian company, no matter the nationality of its capital.

Confirming this new interpretation, the Office of the Attorney General issued the Opinion AGU/LA No. 01/97, published on Jan. 22, 1999, declaring that art. 1, §1 of Law No. 5,709/71 should be considered revoked in its entirety, since it contradicted the intentions of the Brazilian Constitution (after revocation of art. 171). As a result, the obtainment of authorization to own rural lands ceased to be required for Brazilian companies with foreign capital.

However, the issue returned to the Brazilian Government’s agenda due to the increasingly concern with the number of rural lands in the hands of foreign-con-trolled Brazilian entities.

On Aug. 23, 2010, amidst a lot of controversy, the Office of the Attorney Gen-eral issued Opinion AGU/LA No. 01/10, formally changing the interpretation then existing, defending that the Brazilian company with foreign participation and the foreign company will have the same treatment for the purposes of Law No. 5,709/71, whenever the following circumstances are verified cumula-tively: (i) the foreign legal entity is not domiciled in Brazil; (ii) the foreign legal entity participates of the Brazilian company; and (iii) this participation grants the foreign legal entity control in the Brazilian company. In other words, the foreign-controlled Brazilian company again became equated to the foreign company.

Opinion AGU/LA No. 01/10 is binding upon the direct and indirect federal Public Administration and autarchies, including INCRA, the Real Estate Regis-try Offices and the Commercial Register.


3. Bill of Law No. 2,963/19 | Liberalization

If Bill of Law No. 2,963/19 passes as proposed, the current understanding will change once again, so that Brazilian companies, regardless the origin of their capital, are no longer subject to the restrictions imposed by Law No. 5,709/71.

Article 1 of the Bill of Law No. 2,963/19 establishes that:

“Art. 1. This Law regulates art. 190 of the Federal Constitution, amended by art. 1902, amends art. 1 of Law No. 4,131, from September 3, 1962, art. 1 of Law No. 5,868, from December 12, 1972 and art. 6 of Law No. 9,393, from December 19, 1996, with the purpose to rule the acquisition, all the types of possession, including the lease, and the register of rural property in all the domestic territory by foreign individuals and foreign companies, being the latter the ones incorporated and organized out of the national territory.

(...)

§ 2. The restrictions established herein do not apply to Brazilian companies, not even the ones incorporated or controlled directly or indirectly by private foreign individuals or legal entities, (…).” (underlined by author).

Bill of Law No. 2,963/2019 is presently in the Brazilian Senate for deliberation.

4. Law No. 13,986/2020 | Lei do Agro

With the enactment of Law No. 13,986, on Apr. 7, 2020, nicknamed Lei do Agro, Brazilian Government brought more flexibility as to the financing of credit to rural production by authorizing the consolidation of the rural property in favor of foreign companies or Brazilian companies with foreign capital.

Lei do Agro changed art. 1, §2 of Law No. 5,709/713, so as to allow foreign com-panies or foreign-controlled companies to become the owners of rural lands in Brazil in the following situations: (i) an in rem guarantee has been granted, including the fiduciary lien (“alienação fiduciária”) of the rural property; and (ii) if the consolidation of the property is necessary to liquidate a debt in a negoti-ation in course, either by foreclosure of the in rem security, or by “payment in kind” (“dação em pagamento”).


2 Art. 190. The law will rule and limit the acquisition or the lease of rural property by foreign indi-vidual or legal entity and establish the cases that will depend on the authorization of the National Congress.3 Art. 1 (...)§ 2. The restrictions established in this Law are not applicable to:I – the cases of legitimate succession, except for the provisions of art. 7 hereof;II – the cases of creation of in rem security, including the granting of fiduciary liens in favor of legal entity, either Brazilian or foreign;III – the cases of liquidation of settlement with legal entity, either Brazilian or foreign, or Brazilian company controlled by foreign individuals or legal entities domiciled abroad, by granting in rem security, ‘payment in kind’ or by any other means.



NEWSLET TER



Before enactment of Lei do Agro, the only mechanism for a foreign company or Brazilian company with foreign capital to be secured with rural lands, in Brazil, was the mortgage, which, despite being a solid security, lacks liquidity and must go through an execution in Court to be enforced. In addition, in the event of bankruptcy or judicial reorganization (“recuperação judicial”), a mortgage must be enrolled in the bankruptcy or judicial reorganization plan.

For the sake of clarification, the fiduciary lien (“alienação fiduciária”) is a provi-sional transfer of ownership of the property. Unlike the mortgage, foreclosing of a fiduciary lien deed, in which the owner is part of judicial reorganization, exempts the secured party’s credit from being approved as part of the reorga-nization plan.

The only exception refers to the properties deemed as essential for the con-tinuation of debtor’s operations during the reorganization proceeding. In this case, the property cannot be transferred during the stay period that consists of 180 days from the acceptance of the reorganization proceeding by the Court, according to art. 49, §3 of Law No. 11,101/05. Apart from this, unlike mortgag-es, a fiduciary lien can be foreclosed out of the reorganization proceeding in an extrajudicial auction initiated by the Real Estate Registry Office. If there is no sale in auction, full ownership in the property is vested in the secured party and the secured party is entitled to take possession of the property.

The modifications brought by Lei do Agro tend to facilitate an increase in financ-ings and other transactions with foreign investors.

5. Conclusion

Despite all back and forth in the liberalization of the acquisition of rural lands by foreign investors (including Brazilian foreign-controlled companies), recent changes brought by Lei do Agro and the existence of Bill of Law No. 2,963/19 under analysis of the National Congress show that Brazilian Government has been acting in the direction to open new possibilities to bring foreign invest-ments into the country with respect to the ownership of rural properties by foreigners.


Potential flexibilization on Brazilian tax residency rulesWhen traveling and working abroad, the characterization of tax residence, at the individual level, is commonly a forgotten issue that many expatriates have to learn the hard way. Such issue is extremely important as the characterization of fiscal residence derives from the domestic rules, set forth by each country and it is quite common for such individuals to face a double taxation situation (i.e. two jurisdictions taxing the same income) when having a dual tax residency situation.

In Brazil, the condition for a foreign individual to be considered a Brazilian tax resident is, among other cases, either the entrance with a permanent visa or permanence in the country for more than 183 days within a 12-months pe-riod (generally supported by a temporary visa) regardless being consecutive or not. As of the date the individual becomes tax resident in Brazil, such will be subject to Brazilian income taxation, according to worldwide income tax principles.

That is, not only its income generated in Brazil, like local salaries, but also any other income obtained will be a taxable event, irrespectively of their location or remittance to Brazil. Generally, the income perceived from sources abroad by a Brazilian tax resident, whether or not transferred to the country, are sub-ject to income taxation in the form of a mandatory monthly payment (so called Carnê-Leão) which needs to be prepared spontaneously by the individual in the month of receipt. Such must then also be properly informed within the Annual Income Tax Return (DIRPF, as acronym to Declaração do Imposto sobre a Renda da Pessoa Física).

Exemptions exist and while each nature of income will lead to a different taxa-tion, when analyzing the concrete situation, reciprocal income tax treatments and agreements signed by the Brazilian authorities with other jurisdictions must also be taken into consideration, which is not always as simple task to be executed. Additionally, when such expatriate leaves the country with no intent to come back, to interrupt the Brazilian tax residency (from the definitive depar-ture onwards) an Exit Statement must be filled.

In light of the above and considering the current context of the worldwide health crisis due to COVID-19, in which several countries have implemented severe measures restricting international travels and that many nations have adopted quarantine, confinement or isolation regimes, limiting the internal displacement of their citizens, many individuals may face an involuntary char-acterization of tax residence, or even maintenances of tax residence.

Philipp Klose-Morero Managing Partner Rödl & Partner South [email protected] (+55) 11 5094 6060 Ext. 1010

Patrícia BerbetzSenior Manager| Labor & Corporate Services Rödl & Partner Curitiba & São [email protected] (+55) 41 3017 6060 Ext. 2000

Karen SteuerLatam-Coordinator & Tax ManagerRödl & Partner São [email protected] (+55) 11 5094 6060 Ext. 108


NEWSLET TER



Addressing such complexity, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Secretariat released on April 3rd, 2020 its “Analysis of Tax Treaties and the Impact of the COVID-19 Crisis”. Such provides analyzes of several tax implications of the health crisis for individuals who are subject to frequent international travels, addressing recommendations to its member countries. Its concerns related to a change to the residence status of individ-uals, encompasses, basically, two situations:

i) persons temporarily away from their home (perhaps on holiday, perhaps to work for a few weeks) which gets stranded in the host country by reason of the COVID-19 crisis and attains domestic law residence there, and

ii) persons working in a country in which they have acquired residence sta-tus there, but that temporarily returns to their home country because of the COVID-19 situation. Such may either never have lost their status as resident from their original home country under its domestic legislation, or may re-gain residence status on their “forced” return.

Such may be the case to many individuals, that were enjoying vacations in Brazil (as it was still summer when the pandemic hit Brazil) or were tempo-rarily working here but for health concerns were not able to leave county and the 183 days are almost elapsing. The second situation is also true, when for instance, an expatriate Brazilians who moved abroad (with definitive animus) but had to return to Brazil temporarily, due to Covid-19. Although it can be assumed that in most cases there is no motivation for a definitive return, the individual may re-acquire the Brazilian residence.

Given such environment, the Brazilian Federal Revenue has indicated to rec-ognize that such exceptional circumstances have caused a change in the Bra-zilian tax residence situation of Brazilians and foreigners, who are unable to travel and that is evaluating the situation to issue a guidance to those affected. In this regards, even though Brazil is not an OECD member yet, it is expected the that the Brazil Authorities would at least observe the recommendations set forth by the OCED Secretariat, to align such exceptional situation to the international tax standards.

*Author of the publications So geht´s Besteuerung von Unternehmen in Brasilien and So geht’s Buchhaltung in Brasilien

Rödl & Partner*Rua Verbo Divino, 1488Sala 3A, 3º andarChácara Santo Antônio (Zona Sul), São Paulo - SP, 04719-002T (+55) 11 5094 6060www.roedl.de/brasilien

EMDOC*R. Luís Coelho, 30801309-000 - São Paulo - SP/BrasilT (+55) 11 3405 7800www.emdoc.com

Renê [email protected] (+55) 11 3405-7998

Update on restrictions regarding entrance of immigrants in BrazilThe Ministers of State Chief of Staff of the Presidency of the Republic, of Justice and Public Security, Infrastructure and Health published the Ordinance No. 319, on June 20, 2020, maintaining for more 15 days the exceptional and tempo-rary restriction regarding the entrance of immigrants in Brazil by air, sea and land transportation, regardless of their nationality.

In this way, the rules of the previous ordinance (Ordinance 255) remain in effect. In this way, the same conditions and restrictions remain unchanged.

To calculate the term, in Ordinance no. 255 the restriction was given until June 22, 2020. Thus, with the extension of 15 days this period goes to July 7, 2020.

EMDOC professionals are available to answer all demands and doubts on this topic that certainly involves the mobility of many immigrants in this very del-icate moment. Therefore, before leaving your country, consult the specific conditions for entering Brazil.

* Author of the publication So geht´s Ihr Visum in Brasilien

https://www.roedl.de/unternehmen/standorte/brasilien/

https://www.emdoc.com/?lang=pt

NEWSLET TER



José Carlos [email protected] (+55) 11 3024 6244

Ludmila [email protected] (+55) 11 3024 6464

Juliana Maia Daniel [email protected] (+55) 11 3024 6194

Lefosse AdvogadosR. Tabapuã, 1227 – 14th floor04533-014 São Paulo – SPAv. Pres. Wilson, 231 office 270320030-905 Rio de Janeiro – RJT (+55) 11 3024 6100www.lefosse.com

Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor Office issues new guidelines on the negotiation of leniency and collaboration agreements in criminal investigationsThe Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor recently issued welcome guidance to public prosecutors regarding the negotiation of leniency agreements involving individuals as well as other relevant aspects in criminal investigations.

One of the greatest challenges in negotiating leniency agreements in Brazil is related to the different laws providing for multiple investigation and account-ability spheres, in which different authorities can simultaneously investigate and punish companies and individuals for the same facts. In Brazil, only indi-viduals may be held criminally liable for wrongdoings, with very few exceptions expressly provided by Law1.

Notwithstanding, the legal entity might still face a broad variety of repercus-sions in the civil and administrative spheres, especially because of the strict liability provided by the so called “Anticorruption Law” or “Clean Companies” Law (Law no. 12,846/2013), which, in turn, do not apply to individuals, but only to legal entities.

Although the Anticorruption Law has brought a great many benefits to preven-tion and combating corruption – including the leniency agreement2 – it did not provide for the possibility of individuals entering into or adhering to collabora-tion agreements signed by the legal entity, resulting in great difficulties in con-verging companies and individuals’ interests: on one side, the company that is willing to cooperate with the authorities might need to rely on collaboration of-fered by individuals involved in the wrongdoings; on the other side, the Anticor-ruption Law do not offer individuals incentives to disclose any facts, since they could be held criminally liable for the irregularities reported under that Law.

In this scenario of coexisting and not necessarily converging laws, the Brazilian ecosystem for preventing and combatting corruption ends up providing for dif-ferent mechanisms of collaboration agreements to be entered by legal entities and individuals, sometimes with different authorities, but based on the same facts. While individuals are entitled to negotiate plea bargain agreements to mitigate their criminal exposure3 and, more recently, non-prosecution agree-ments4 with the Public Prosecutors, legal entities that decide to cooperate with the investigations should first accomplish the inglorious task to convince its own employees to cooperate, in order to enable the negotiation of leniency or col-laboration agreements with the Public Prosecutor or other possibly multiple relevant authorities, depending on the legal qualification of the facts.

This lack of unity has also implications to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose different local bodies have, according to the Brazilian Federal Constitution, in-dependence to carry on their investigations. In this scenario, it is not unusual to have different Public Prosecutors investigating the same facts, especially in situations where the misconducts occurred all over the country or, at least, in different municipalities or government spheres.

As an attempt to reduce legal uncertainties on the negotiation of leniency and collaboration agreements, the Brazilian Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF – 5th CCR)5 issued the new guidance for public prosecutors – the Technical Note 01/20 (“Technical Note”)6 - with specific highlights on the possibility of individ-uals adhering to leniency agreements entered by the companies. According to the MPF, the purpose of the Technical Note is to standardize civil and criminal activities carried out by the Public Prosecutors and, therefore, improve efficien-cy of the leniency and collaboration agreements in both spheres.

Although the individuals’ adhesion to corporate leniency and collaboration agreements entered with the Public Prosecutor’s Office already was, in fact, a consolidated practice7, the Technical Note strengthened this possibility and its relevance to ensure maximum cooperation within these agreements. Indeed, the joint negotiation (even if not simultaneous) with legal entities and corre-

1 Unlike common law jurisdictions, the so-called civil law systems, with a few exceptions, generally do not apply criminal liability to legal (as opposed to natural) entities. As such, even if a company is the ultimate beneficiary of a corrupt act, such as bribery, it cannot be held criminally liable in Brazil.2 Before the enactment of the Law 12,846, the negotiation of leniency agreements was restrict-ed to antitrust infringements based on the Law 12,529/2011, which provided for the possibility of companies and individuals entering into leniency and collaboration (cease and desist) agree-ments with the Brazilian antitrust authority - the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE, in its Portuguese acronym).

3 Such as the Law 9,605/98 (the Environmental Crimes Law).4 In Portuguese, “Acordo de Não-Persecução Cível”, provided by the Law 13,964/2019, known as the “Anti-Crime Package” proposed by former Public Security and Justice Minister Sergio Moro.5 The Technical Note was prepared by the Anti-Corruption Chamber (5CCR), through the Per-manent Advisory Committee on Leniency and Collaboration Agreements –a body of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office aimed at improving and developing new strategies and guidelines for leniency and collaboration agreements, as well as procedures for combatting corruption, money launder-ing and related practices.6 Available at http://www.mpf.mp.br/pgr/documentos/05.05.RedaofinalNTALcomAdesoesLTI-MAVERSO.pdf, access on May 8, 2020.7 Such as the leniency and collaboration agreements entered with Andrade Gutierrez, Braskem, Camargo Correa, SOG, Odebrecht, J&F and others.


https://lefosse.com/


NEWSLET TER



sponding individuals significatively increases the knowledge of the authorities to the investigated irregularities. On the other hand, it assigns to the adher-ing individuals the rights and obligations of the leniency agreement8, with the possibility of extending such benefits to the criminal sphere. This increases the possibility of legal entities entering into collaboration agreements with the au-thorities, since it grants incentives for individuals to cooperate and remove from legal entities the feeling of pushing its employees ‘under the bus’.

• Decrease of time and bureaucracy in the negotiation proceeding of collab-oration agreements, since the adhesion to a corporate leniency agreement would remit to and be signed on the same legal grounds than the latter; this means that the individuals’ adhesion would be part of the same framework previously established by the leniency agreement9;

• Clear guidelines on solving possible conflicts of jurisdiction between two or more different Public Prosecutor’s Offices entitled to investigate the same facts, with the reinforcement of the 5th CCR – MPF’s jurisdiction to solve these conflicts;

• Possibility of having other Public Prosecutors’ Offices (e.g. state Public Pros-ecutors) voluntarily adhering, at any time, to leniency or collaboration agree-ments previously entered by the MPF. This allows the adhering Public Pros-ecutor to use the evidences on facts covered by these agreements against other companies or individuals;

• Strengthening of the functional independence, unity and indivisibility of the Public Prosecutor, i.e., entitling the Public Prosecutor that enters into an agreement to act as the messenger of the public administration and, there-fore, reducing the risks of having agreements challenged by other state or federal local bodies of that organization;

• Offering isonomic and proportional treatment in benefits granted to the collaborating parties, considering the circumstances of each individual, the relevance and details of the facts disclosed, the corroborating documents pre-sented etc. By providing clear parameters for granting benefits to new adher-ing individuals, the Public Prosecutor increases legal certainty and equality in the negotiation of collaboration agreements.

8 This is particularly relevant with respect to the obligation to cooperate with the authorities. This means that the adhering individuals must fully cooperate with the investigations, giving detailed information on the misconducts in order to obtain the corresponding benefits of the leniency agreement.9 It is worth noting, however, that the adhesion must be also submitted to homologation by the 5th CCR.

10 Such as the Brazilian Security Exchange Comission (Comissão de Valores Mobiliários – CVM, in its Portuguese acronym), the Brazilian Central Bank (Law 13,506/2013), among other relevant authorities according to the jurisdiction rules provided by the Law 12,846

The initiative to provide further written guidelines on leniency and collaboration agreements is notable and extremely important to increase legal certainty in the negotiation of these agreements – even if it is just to reinforce some of the practices already adopted by the Public Prosecutors in previous agreements, such as the possibility of individuals adhering to companies’ agreements. Hav-ing written guidelines are relevant not only to drive the negotiations with Public Prosecutors, but may also act as relevant instruments for other authorities en-titled to negotiate collaboration agreements10.

These guidelines, however, lack of more clear parameters in relevant aspects, in particular those relating to the so-called isonomic and proportional treat-ment in benefits granted to the individuals that decide to collaborate with the investigations. The Technical Note did not provide further parameters on this “isonomic” treatment; instead, it states that the adhering conditions should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, negotiating possible legal benefits in both the civil and criminal spheres.

The law-practicing community awaits to see how these guidelines will be en-forced in practice, expecting that the changes present themselves as effective improvements in the transparency and legal certainty of non-prosecution pro-cedures carried out by the authorities.





RECHT & STEUERN

Alle Inhalte dieses Newsletters obliegen der Verantwortung der jeweiligen Autoren und wurden von diesen sorgfältig recherchiert.

Für die Richtigkeit und Vollständigkeit der Inhalte übernimmt die Deutsch-Brasilianische Industrie- und Handelskammer keine Gewähr.

Deutsch-Brasilianische Industrie- und Handelskammer São Paulo

Rua Verbo Divino, 1488 - 3º andar04719-904 São Paulo - SP - BrasilienT (0055 11) 5187-5216F (0055 11) 5181-7013E [email protected]

www.ahkbrasil.com

https://www.ahkbrasilien.com.br/

deutsch-brasilianische industrie- und handelskammer • vol ... · ups’ investors, as provided...

Documents