The STJ (Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) issued a relevant decision for corporate governance and corporate dispute resolution in Brazil. The court ruled that filing a lawsuit to demand accounting from a company manager does not require the plaintiff to be formally included in the articles of association. For the STJ, proving the legal relationship with the company is sufficient.
To understand the impact of this understanding, it is important to clarify two fundamental concepts in the business environment. The action to demand accounting is a legal procedure in which a person requests that the party responsible for managing resources presents a detailed breakdown of revenues, expenses, and investments. The figure of the de facto partner refers to someone who has rights and acts in the company’s dynamics, but does not yet have their name officially registered in the corporate documents at the Board of Trade (Brazil’s commercial registry).
The Nature of Corporate Registration
In Brazilian corporate law, the main function of public registration is to provide publicity to the company’s acts and produce effects against third parties. However, the relationship between the partners or investors themselves can exist through joint action and the pursuit of a common economic activity, regardless of immediate documentary regularization.
The STJ decision consolidates the view that the absence of formality does not serve as a shield for managers to evade the duty of transparency. Managing third-party resources requires continuous and documented accounting. The court understands that the existence of a company or an investment relationship is not exclusively conditioned on its formal registration. This protects the right to information of those who already integrate the operation in practice.
The Fiduciary Duty of Managers
Managing a business company carries non-negotiable fiduciary duties. Loyalty and transparency are the most evident. When an executive or managing partner assumes the management of capital, they act on behalf of the corporate interest and the holders of that capital. The STJ’s understanding reinforces that this fiduciary duty is not activated only by registration at the Board of Trade, but by the reality of the business relationship.
This is especially critical in foreign direct investment scenarios and cross-border operations. International investors frequently structure their operations in Brazil through investment vehicles or partnership agreements that may take time to be fully reflected in the formal corporate structure. Knowing that the Brazilian legal system allows demanding accounts based on the reality of the legal relationship provides greater predictability to foreign capital.
Practical Impacts for Investors and Executives
This understanding brings direct implications for founders, investors, and executives operating in the Brazilian market. In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), capital contributions, or corporate restructurings, a time gap commonly occurs between signing a commercial agreement and effectively changing public records.
For managers, the rule reinforces the need to maintain rigorous financial controls and solid corporate governance from the beginning of any corporate arrangement. The duty to account exists even for those business partners who are still awaiting the formalization of their entry into the company.
On the other hand, for investors and partners who are not yet in the articles of association, the decision reaffirms the protection of their property rights. To exercise this right, the investor must have adequate documentation. Preliminary contracts, memorandums of understanding, or investment agreements can prove the legal relationship with the operation.
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.
Deixe um comentário