Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed on Monday 20 June 2016 the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais ($19.26 billion) in debt. The company also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S. on Tuesday.

On 20 June 2016, Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais (USD19.26 billion) in debt. The company has also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S.  As from the date of filing the accrual of interests, penalties, monetary correction and late charges are suspended and will only become enforceable if the judicial reorganisation becomes a bankruptcy.

On October 30, 2013, Brazilian oil company OGX Petróleo e Gas Participações SA (OGX) filed for bankruptcy protection (or “judicial reorganization”) in Rio de Janeiro after restructuring discussions between the company and its major creditors ended without agreement. With nearly $5 billion of debt, OGX is the largest and most complex bankruptcy proceeding to be conducted in Latin America and will not only test Brazil’s nascent bankruptcy law, but also presents itself as the latest potential opportunity for distressed investors focused on Latin American emerging markets.

Actions prior to a formal proceeding

What duties do directors or officers of a company owe creditors or other third parties if the company is insolvent or in financial difficulties, or has negative net worth? Is there a standard of care towards third parties? In what circumstances can officers and directors be found civilly or criminally liable for continuing to operate a company in financial difficulties? In practice, are such liabilities commonly enforced?Actions prior to a formal proceeding

In Brazil, directors and officers do not owe any duties directly to creditors of

The court-supervised reorganization of corporations introduced by Law 11101/05 (the Brazilian Reorganization and Bankruptcy Law - "LRF" in the Portuguese acronym) arose as one of the changes needed to lower credit risk and achieve greater reductions in interests accrued on financial loans. However, little has been said about the fact that the LRF has introduced several capital market protection mechanisms, which we will discuss in this article.

Although in some jurisdictions arbitration is a long-established form of alternative dispute resolution, this mechanism has only recently been regulated in Brazil. The Brazilian Commercial Code, enacted in 1850, already included a few sparse provisions regarding commercial arbitration, but there were no references to specific rules. It was not until 1996 that Brazil passed its first specific arbitration statute, Law No. 9,307/96 (Arbitration Law).

The Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça - STJ) judged Direct Appeal n. 1.223.792 where the State of Mato Grosso do Sul sought to include the delay penalty in the classification of the credits in the bankruptcy of a company. According to the opinion announced by the Second Panel, in the case of bankruptcy declared during the validity term of Law n.

• In Irving H. Picard v Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, BVIHCV 0140/2010, the trustee appointed in the liquidation of the business of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Picard” and “BLMIS”) sought, amongst other things, (i) recognition in the BVI as a foreign representative; (ii) an entitlement to apply to the BVI Court for orders in aid of the foreign proceeding; and (iii) an entitlement to require any person to deliver up to him any property of BLMIS.
• Bannister J.

On 15 September 20091 the judge responsible for the Lehman bankruptcy proceedings in the United States held that Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) could not rely on Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement to suspend payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (“LBSF”). Specifically, Judge Peck held that the safe harbour provisions in the US bankruptcy code protected a non-defaulting party’s contractual rights to liquidate, terminate or accelerate swaps and to net termination values but did not provide a basis to withhold performance under a swap if it did not terminate.

A number of changes have been made to insolvency procedure to remove various discrepancies and controversial practices: