Special Corporate Law Courts

Anyone who is familiar with the countless police procedurals on television knows that there are specific ways to investigate certain types of crimes. Expertise in a particular field can be crucial for better handling the criminal element that focuses on white-collar or corporate crime for example. However, this idea is not only for the screen. as real courts are doing the same thing.

Officials in Sao Paulo, Brazil, are considering setting up a series of specialized courts that would deal with corporate law and commercial disputes. This is following positive feedback from a move made in 2011 which saw an appellate court to adjudicate commercial disputes. The idea is to speed up the settlement process and ensure proper remedies are prescribed accordingly.

While there is excitement about this move, there is also trepidation from some legal practitioners. One thought is that this would decrease the number of companies going to arbitration and increase the number of lawsuits handled by judges.

However, as most arbitration only takes place under specific circumstances and in sophisticated cases, it is unlikely arbitration would be become redundant. On top of that, others advocate that the possibility of setting precedents would be limited to just a handful of judges that specialized in commercial law.

Although there is some skepticism surrounding this idea in the legal would, the results from the appellate courts that handle commercial disputes show that this move would make precedents more coherent and straightforward. There should be more enthusiasm for the possibility of having specialty courts to handle corporate law in the Brazilian jurisdiction.

Farm Land Dispute

In 1988, Brazil’s constitution was adopted and a period of five years was put in place to decide the outcome of Amerindian tribal lands. Now, 25 years later, those disputes are still going on, but solutions could finally be in sight.

Over the last three months, a series of meetings have been held by a Commission led by the National Council of Justice to examine the land dispute and come up with suggestions to rectify it once and for all. This week, it presented its findings in a report with suggestions that would appeal to both the Americans and the farmers in Mato Grosso do Sul. The suggestions are still preliminary and will need to be revised before being sent to Brazilia, but are reported to include remedies that range from the foreclosure of land to indemnification.

The reason for the dispute of land is the value that it holds for the country’s export marketplace. Highly sought-after commodities such as soybeans, oranges, and coffee are grown and shipped from rural regions like Mato Grosso do Sul. This means that problems in these areas can lead to local and national issues with agriculture and the economy.

While this is just a list of suggestions and could lead to no ultimate solution, there are some quality minds behind it. Sérgio Fernandes Martins, the leader of the Commission, knows that resolving this matter is the Executive’s responsibility. On top of that, Gustavo Passarelli, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Federation of Farming of Mato Grosso do Sul, claims that the focus should be on indemnifying the farmers.

OAB disputes Rio vandalism committee’s legitimacy

The protests in Brazil have created a volatile landscape and a number of different crimes are on the rise through the country. This is the biggest issue in Brazil since the political unrest that stirred from the resignation of President Fernando Collor in 1992.

As with any large scale social demonstration, one of those incidents is the level of vandalism in Rio. To help combat this, a new commission was proposed that would investigate these specific crimes, however, questions are being raised about its constitutionality.

The original version of the Act was revoked on July 22 and a new version was enacted on the grounds that its constitutionality was dubious. Now, members of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) hold that the new act is still unconstitutional.

According to Ronaldo Cramer, the vice-president of the OAB in Rio, only the Federal Government can set up a commission with investigative powers. On top of that, the Act is not in accordance with Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, based on the grounds that the commission has the ability to access data and personal information without judicial consent throughout the course of any investigation.

The State Government of Rio de Janeiro responded to the concerns. In a statement, a spokesman said it takes all the remarks by the OAB in the course of drafting the latest version of the Act. However, some jurists have expressed that the changes made are not enough to solve the issues and further action should be taken.

Attempt to halt new court creation injunction

There has been a debate among Brazilian law members about the establishment of four new federal regional courts in the country. The amendment that created this plan (73/2013) has been under much scrutiny and on July 17, an injunction was granted by Supreme Court president Justice Joaquim Barbosa to suspend the amendment. Now, Marcus Vinicius Furtado Coelho, President of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB), has stated that the entity’s Federal Council is calling for the Supreme Court to not ratify it.

The injunction was granted as a lawsuit filed by the National Association of Federal Public Prosecutors on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The main argument is that Congress is not allowed to interfere when it comes to proposing the establishment of new courts. According to article 96 of the Federal Constitution, the Judiciary branch is the only organization that can do so.

The Federal Association of Brazilian Judges have reported that the matters surrounding the decision to grant the original injunction was unusual. The president of the organization, Nino Toldo, released a statement and said that the unconstitutional claim was filed just hours before the injunction was granted. There is also little urgency to resolve the matter as any new court would not be established until December at the earliest.

The amendment had been in place for one month prior to the issue of unconstitutionality being raised and the OAB waited unto the last working-day of Congress when Justice Barbosa, who has been publicly demonstrated skepticism, was on duty.

The entire process has raised a number of questions but the outcome of this legislation is still in limbo as politicians, jurists and other legal entities continue to debate it.