Brazil court of justice to judge BRL 88 mln suit against the Port of Navegantes

Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) is about to judge that will leave a mark on the country’s business environment. The Court will analyze a lawsuit filed by an American lawyer against the Port of Navegantes in Santa Catarina. Luther Terry Grimble wants to receive BRL 88.2 mln from the port terminal, claiming that he played a key role in the negotiations that led to the installation of the port in 2005. The problem is that, according to the case file, he has no contract signed, and the port never gave the lawyer a power of attorney to act on behalf of the company.

The case interests the entire Brazilian infrastructure market because Grimble argues that his participation is equivalent to a real estate sale brokerage, which would make him entitled to a 5% commission on the total investments made for implementing the port. The Justice of the state of Paraná gave him partial victory, considering his participation in one of these investments, which totals about BRL 40 million in today’s values. The Port of Navegantes appealed to the STJ, where the action was drawn to Minister Isabel Gallotti, a member of the 4th Panel of the court.

According to the port company, Grimble knocked on Portonave’s door in 2004, claiming to be a specialist in infrastructure investments and willing to seek investors for the operation. The port recognizes that he facilitated some meetings, but none of them led to the signing of a contract or the consolidation of a business. Moreover, no contract with the American was inked, a fact that the lawyer himself recognizes in the records.

Verbal contracts

STJ’s decision could impact the entire business environment in the country precisely because it would open a breach to “verbal contracts” in consulting or investment services, which – in turn – would generate enormous legal uncertainty. Brazil’s civil legislation requires written evidence in cases like this, recognizing testimonial evidence only as a supplement.

Portonave also questions the 5% commission. An illustrious jurist endorses the argument: when he was still a professor at the Federal University of Paraná, Edson Fachin – now Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) – issued an opinion stating that there is no possibility of charging brokerage fees by the operation. According to him, if the professional relationship is proven, the payment should resemble the service provision.

“Brokerage occurs when one of the parties undertakes to receive the wills, obtain their convergence and conclude the business, with the respective declaration to the incumbent. If this is not the nature of the business, we are not talking about brokerage, but rather another atypical provision of services or even a unilateral act, if there is no prior agreement between the parties,” highlights the jurist in the opinion.

Public attorney Davi Evangelista, a specialist in civil procedural law and partner of Reginaldo de Castro e Davi Evangelista Advogados Associados, shares a similar understanding with Fachin. According to him, only a contract, a unilateral declaration of will, and the law can be considered sources of Portonave’s responsibility to the American. He says the law does not establish any commitment in this case.

The lawyer also points out that as there was never a promise of payment by the port company or the establishment of a contract between the two parties, nothing binds the port to the operation. “There is simply no obligation and responsibility for them in the face of what happened,” he attests.

Controversial history

Grimble’s background in the US, where he responded to 16 lawsuits for the misappropriation of public funds while serving as the director of the Arizona Drug Control District, adds to the plot. He received criticism for a number of things during this time, including paying for a leather jacket and travel with tax dollars.

The actions earned him a public censure from the Arizona State Supreme Court, with a conviction of $8,639,000. He also had his license to practice law suspended for three years by the American Bar Association for non-payment. The findings are part of a dossier prepared by an American research firm. Grimble did not respond to a request to comment.

Source: Veja

To read the full original article, please go to: https://veja.abril.com.br/coluna/matheus-leitao/stj-julgara-caso-de-americano-que-pede-r-88-mi-milhoes-a-porto-navegantes/

Sharing is caring!