Post by xyz3700 on Feb 27, 2024 8:31:53 GMT
Owner of the Dolly beverage brand, Laerte Codonho filed a complaint with the Inspector General's Office of the State of São Paulo so that the conduct of prosecutor Alessandro Rodrigues Junqueira could be investigated throughout the investigation against the group, which is currently in judicial recovery. Reproduction / SBT Laerte Codonho, owner of Dolly, asks the Internal Affairs Department to investigate the actions of a prosecutor on charges of persecution Reproduction/SBT The businessman accuses the prosecutor of refusing to enter into an agreement, proposed in May 2017, for the payment of the ICMS owed by Dolly through the Special Installment Program (PEP). According to the complaint, the PGE representative began to demand an amount much higher than the actual debt, in addition to payment in cash, so that the company's state registration could be released.
It is clear that the reason for the refusal arises from the reduction in legal fees that the PGE representatives would have if the debt was paid under the PEP", says part of the complaint. At the time, the group paid R$33 million for state registration to be reactivated. Codonho also accuses the prosecutor of imputing responsibility for an offshore company and for assets that did not belong to the Dolly group or the businessman. The company was included in Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List the fiscal precautionary measure that resulted in Codonho's temporary arrest in May 2018. "This error is far from being considered a mere mistake on the part of the accused and reveals intentional conduct aimed at damaging the Dolly brand", states the businessman in the representation. "It is worth noting that this mistake was recognized by the accused himself in a petition later added to those files with a consecutive determination to exclude the aforementioned company from the defendant position.
Thus, the rejection of certain evidence, as long as it is adequately substantiated by the arbitration court, does not constitute an offense against the adversary system. The rapporteur also recognized that annulment actions do not serve to simply review the merits of the arbitration award, but must be based on one of the hypotheses provided for in article 32 of the Arbitration Law, such as the nullity of the arbitration agreement, the choice of illegitimate arbitrator and the decision rendered outside the limits of the arbitration agreement. Regarding the allegations brought by the company in the special appeal, Marco Aurélio Bellizze pointed out that the arbitration court understood that the parties, when establishing the value of the company (and the social shares subject to assignment), considered all the existing assets and liabilities of the business company in their accounts, to which they had broad access.
It is clear that the reason for the refusal arises from the reduction in legal fees that the PGE representatives would have if the debt was paid under the PEP", says part of the complaint. At the time, the group paid R$33 million for state registration to be reactivated. Codonho also accuses the prosecutor of imputing responsibility for an offshore company and for assets that did not belong to the Dolly group or the businessman. The company was included in Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List the fiscal precautionary measure that resulted in Codonho's temporary arrest in May 2018. "This error is far from being considered a mere mistake on the part of the accused and reveals intentional conduct aimed at damaging the Dolly brand", states the businessman in the representation. "It is worth noting that this mistake was recognized by the accused himself in a petition later added to those files with a consecutive determination to exclude the aforementioned company from the defendant position.
Thus, the rejection of certain evidence, as long as it is adequately substantiated by the arbitration court, does not constitute an offense against the adversary system. The rapporteur also recognized that annulment actions do not serve to simply review the merits of the arbitration award, but must be based on one of the hypotheses provided for in article 32 of the Arbitration Law, such as the nullity of the arbitration agreement, the choice of illegitimate arbitrator and the decision rendered outside the limits of the arbitration agreement. Regarding the allegations brought by the company in the special appeal, Marco Aurélio Bellizze pointed out that the arbitration court understood that the parties, when establishing the value of the company (and the social shares subject to assignment), considered all the existing assets and liabilities of the business company in their accounts, to which they had broad access.