Post by account_disabled on Feb 19, 2024 1:17:08 GMT -5
Known as class actions , as well as the collective actions of the CDC that protect homogeneous individual rights, corporate action would adopt the opt- out rule in collective protection [ 5] . Thus, once the class of investors has been defined, those who do not expressly speak out would remain part of the process. The final, generic decision would produce res judicata for all members of the class and would determine clear and precise parameters for subsequent individual settlement (proposal for article 27-H, §11, I, of Law No. 6,385/76). The PL, however, allows interested parties, who have not intervened in the collective action, to propose individual actions (wording of the PL for article 27-H, §8º, of Law nº 6,385/76), to whom the collective sentence will do nothing. judged (wording of the PL for article 27-H, §11, II, of Law nº 6,385/76).
Arbitration
The PL also contemplates the possibility of a solution through arbitration. However, even though it provides for the publicity of precedents and processes (wording of the PL for article 109, §§4 and 5, of the LSA), and the possibility Telegram Number Data of the CVM providing additional requirements (proposal for article 109, § 6th, of the LSA), “Requiring clear predictions from arbitration institutions regarding the meeting of processes is undoubtedly a healthy measure because it is known that, in the absence of subsidiary application of the Civil Procedure Code, the lack of clarity in regulations can lead to conflicting decisions, which which is not desirable in the transindividual sphere where uniformity is highly expected” 6 .
Conclusion
The proposed changes attract apprehensive looks at the PL, since the legislation, as a rule and unless better judgment, seems to work well. There are those who, however, see the possible new law as a good tool to make the private enforcement system more effective . Whatever the reader's opinion, the moment seems ripe for debates in the search for the best for the system of private protection of interests.
Type of remuneration
Interest on equity (JCP) represents a type of remuneration intended for partners or shareholders of a business company that allows the perception of income equivalent to what they would receive if they sought another long-term financial investment. Thus, in accordance with the discipline of article 9 of Law No. 9,249/1995, the company pays remuneration to its shareholders and recognizes the amount as a deductible expense, deducting it from its taxable profit.
The central controversy between the tax authorities and taxpayers revolves around the moment in which the deduction of expenses related to the payment or credit of interest on equity can be made.
In these cases, the understanding adopted by the Federal Revenue of Brazil follows the rationale that the JCP deduction can only occur in the year in which they were calculated, under penalty of violating the legal limits of deductions foreseen for a given calendar year.
Therefore, when calculating the net profit for the year, the amounts allocated to partners as capital remuneration must form part of the entity's accounting profit, necessarily implying that they are recognized as part of the company's yearly results as an expense, not admitting that are incurred only when the allocation of profits is decided.
Arbitration
The PL also contemplates the possibility of a solution through arbitration. However, even though it provides for the publicity of precedents and processes (wording of the PL for article 109, §§4 and 5, of the LSA), and the possibility Telegram Number Data of the CVM providing additional requirements (proposal for article 109, § 6th, of the LSA), “Requiring clear predictions from arbitration institutions regarding the meeting of processes is undoubtedly a healthy measure because it is known that, in the absence of subsidiary application of the Civil Procedure Code, the lack of clarity in regulations can lead to conflicting decisions, which which is not desirable in the transindividual sphere where uniformity is highly expected” 6 .
Conclusion
The proposed changes attract apprehensive looks at the PL, since the legislation, as a rule and unless better judgment, seems to work well. There are those who, however, see the possible new law as a good tool to make the private enforcement system more effective . Whatever the reader's opinion, the moment seems ripe for debates in the search for the best for the system of private protection of interests.
Type of remuneration
Interest on equity (JCP) represents a type of remuneration intended for partners or shareholders of a business company that allows the perception of income equivalent to what they would receive if they sought another long-term financial investment. Thus, in accordance with the discipline of article 9 of Law No. 9,249/1995, the company pays remuneration to its shareholders and recognizes the amount as a deductible expense, deducting it from its taxable profit.
The central controversy between the tax authorities and taxpayers revolves around the moment in which the deduction of expenses related to the payment or credit of interest on equity can be made.
In these cases, the understanding adopted by the Federal Revenue of Brazil follows the rationale that the JCP deduction can only occur in the year in which they were calculated, under penalty of violating the legal limits of deductions foreseen for a given calendar year.
Therefore, when calculating the net profit for the year, the amounts allocated to partners as capital remuneration must form part of the entity's accounting profit, necessarily implying that they are recognized as part of the company's yearly results as an expense, not admitting that are incurred only when the allocation of profits is decided.