Bradesco and Americanas end the bail discussion in court

Bradesco and Americanas end the bail discussion in court

Sao Paulo – Bradesco And the Americans The Rio de Janeiro Court requested an end to the discussion on the treatment of credits related to bank guarantees in… Judicial recovery The company was informed status/broadcast Sources who requested anonymity. Interest in the agreement was the motivation for the request, according to the document reviewed by the report.

“Given the common interest in the outcome of the recovery plan presented by the Americanas Group, Bradesco and the debtors know that, without recognizing any legal thesis regarding the matter that gave rise to it, they agree to close this credit challenge,” he says. Petition.

The bank and retailer filed a joint petition. In it, they explain that Bradesco filed an objection based on the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) so that these credits were considered non-competitive, that is, they were dealt with outside the company’s judicial recovery process.

This means that the credits related to the guarantees will not be subject to the discounts or extended payment terms negotiated with Americanas’ creditors. The company filed a judicial recovery request last January, with debts exceeding 40 billion Brazilian riyals. Bradesco, which will receive about R$5 billion, is the largest.

Lojas Americanas has been in the judicial recovery phase since January filming: Owsley Marcelino/Reuters

There is no established jurisprudence regarding the treatment of bank guarantees in judicial recoveries. This type of product is a guarantee that banks provide to a third party, usually a supplier, on behalf of the company. If the company fails to pay the supplier, the guarantee is activated and payment is made by the bank which becomes the company’s creditor.

See also  The man who won 1.2 million Brazilian riyals in the lottery but cannot redeem the prize | Economie

Most jurists believe that the recovery law classifies these credits as outside the scope of competition, but there are legal interpretations that say this is not the case. This division reached into negotiations over the judicial restitution of Americana. Bradesco defends non-competitive treatment, but a group of banks, led by Itao Unibanco, went to court to demand that the credit be recognized as competitive and, therefore, should receive the same treatment as others.

According to sources, Bradesco had about R$600 million of guarantees granted to Americana. This division was one of the crucial points that prevented negotiations to reach an agreement between the retail chain and creditors from progressing.

Until then, the banks would have sought an agreement on the issue, to no avail. In fact, there were at least two different proposals on the negotiating table for the text of the Judicial Recovery Plan: one offering more benefits to those who hold bail bonds and one offering fewer benefits.

Thus, the agreement between Americanas and Bradesco to terminate this part of the lawsuit indicates greater proximity to the completion of the new text. Through this movement, the bank wants to help achieve a result, according to the report. status/broadcast.

Bradesco and Americanas were consulted but did not comment.

You May Also Like

About the Author: Camelia Kirk

"Friendly zombie guru. Avid pop culture scholar. Freelance travel geek. Wannabe troublemaker. Coffee specialist."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *