Post by xyz3800 on Feb 27, 2024 23:05:09 GMT -5
The 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice denied an appeal from a cooperative and two guarantors who tried to offset their debts to the bankrupt estate of Banco Santos with credits that it has to receive from companies that would be part of the same group as the financial institution. According to the panel, compensation is only possible if two people are both creditors and debtors of each other. And, in this case, neither Banco Santos nor its bankrupt estate are debtors of the cooperative. According to the process, Banco Santos signed an exchange contract worth approximately R$3 million with Cotrel in 2004, and fully advanced the amount to the cooperative. Payment was supposed to take place in August 2005, but there was no payment either by the cooperative or by the business's guarantors. The bankruptcy of Banco Santos was declared in September.
In, the bank's bankrupt estate obtained a favorable ruling to demand full payment of the exchange contract from Cotrel and the guarantors. The cooperative sought to offset credits by having debentures and investments with two companies that would be controlled by Banco Santos – Santospar and Sanvest. In the first and second instances, the request from the cooperative and the guarantors was dismissed as unfounded, on the grounds that there is no Exit Mobile Number List reciprocity between the alleged credits. According to the rapporteur of the cooperative's appeal to the STJ, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, such offsetting of credits is not possible in the case analyzed, given the lack of subjective identity between creditor and debtor. "The formal creditor, currently the bankrupt estate of Banco Santos (defendant), is not a debtor of the appellant Cotrel, nor was Banco Santos before its bankruptcy, so I maintain the decision that ruled out the intended compensation" , he stated.
Sanseverino highlighted that the intended compensation of values would remove assets from Banco Santos' bankruptcy assets to be used to pay the institution's debts. He said that the credits that Cotrel has against Santospar and Sanvest must be settled by their corresponding assets, “and it is not possible, within this action, to recognize compensation that does not comply with legal requirements”. Article 368 of the Civil Code – the minister highlighted – is clear in establishing that compensation takes place when two people are both creditors and debtors of each other; According to article 371, the debtor can only compensate the creditor for what the latter owes him, while article 380 provides that compensation to the detriment of the rights of a third party is not permitted. Another allegation by Cotrel rejected by the class was the alleged coercion of Banco Santos to release the contract values through the investment of values in Santospar and Sanvest.
In, the bank's bankrupt estate obtained a favorable ruling to demand full payment of the exchange contract from Cotrel and the guarantors. The cooperative sought to offset credits by having debentures and investments with two companies that would be controlled by Banco Santos – Santospar and Sanvest. In the first and second instances, the request from the cooperative and the guarantors was dismissed as unfounded, on the grounds that there is no Exit Mobile Number List reciprocity between the alleged credits. According to the rapporteur of the cooperative's appeal to the STJ, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, such offsetting of credits is not possible in the case analyzed, given the lack of subjective identity between creditor and debtor. "The formal creditor, currently the bankrupt estate of Banco Santos (defendant), is not a debtor of the appellant Cotrel, nor was Banco Santos before its bankruptcy, so I maintain the decision that ruled out the intended compensation" , he stated.
Sanseverino highlighted that the intended compensation of values would remove assets from Banco Santos' bankruptcy assets to be used to pay the institution's debts. He said that the credits that Cotrel has against Santospar and Sanvest must be settled by their corresponding assets, “and it is not possible, within this action, to recognize compensation that does not comply with legal requirements”. Article 368 of the Civil Code – the minister highlighted – is clear in establishing that compensation takes place when two people are both creditors and debtors of each other; According to article 371, the debtor can only compensate the creditor for what the latter owes him, while article 380 provides that compensation to the detriment of the rights of a third party is not permitted. Another allegation by Cotrel rejected by the class was the alleged coercion of Banco Santos to release the contract values through the investment of values in Santospar and Sanvest.