insights.freddoa.com

Categoria: Societário

  • Earnout（盈利能力对赌）争议：专家与仲裁员的界限

    Earnout（盈利能力对赌）争议：专家与仲裁员的界限

    在并购（M&A）交易中，特别是在涉及外国投资或复杂的交易中，使用earnout（盈利能力对赌）条款非常普遍。Earnout是一种价格调整机制，即对被收购公司的部分付款取决于其未来是否达到特定的财务或运营目标。为了确保高效、降低成本并利用专业技术知识，合同通常会将关于这些计算的任何分歧委托给独立会计师处理。

    然而，一个反复出现的问题往往会将这些争议解决机制诉诸法庭，从而打破了各方对效率的期望：该专业人士的职权界限是什么？他仅仅是作为会计专家行事，还是拥有仲裁员的权力来决定复杂的法律问题？

    美国特拉华州衡平法院（Court of Chancery）——在公司诉讼和并购实践（包括在巴西）中具有强大全球影响力的司法管辖区——最近的一项裁决在这一问题上划定了一条重要的分界线。法院重申，合同结构和机制中所表达的当事人意图，优先于孤立的标签。

    案件背景与合同分歧

    在Georgia Security Solutions, LLC诉NewCBN, LLC一案中，一家视频监控公司的出售包含了一项与经常性收入挂钩、潜在价值数百万美元的earnout。买卖协议对买方在考核期内的行为设定了限制，保障了卖方的知情权，并规定将未解决的earnout争议提交给独立会计师作出具有约束力的决定。合同将该决定描述为“被视为仲裁裁决”。

    当买方报告的收入刚好低于触发额外付款所需的门槛时，卖方提出了异议。卖方指控买方将创始人排除在运营之外、调离了核心员工，并故意制造会计问题，从而构成了违约。

    鉴于此，卖方诉诸法院。买方则提出驳回诉讼的请求，理由是该争议专属于会计师管辖，且会计师应以仲裁员的身份行事。然而，法院拒绝了这一解释。

    专家与仲裁员的区别

    特拉华州法院的裁决强调，任命会计师、规定非正式程序以及将审查限制在严格的会计问题上，表明当事人选择的是专家决定，而非全面的仲裁。法院得出结论，合同文本中仅仅使用“仲裁裁决”这一标签，并不能将专业人士的职权范围扩大到涵盖法律问题。

    因此，会计师的职责是应用公认会计原则（GAAP）、计量合格收入，并解释与该数学计算严格相关的条款。另一方面，法院保留了对违反合同义务（covenants）、侵犯知情权以及由此类不当行为引起的相应财务赔偿指控的管辖权。

    法院还指出，“排他性救济”条款并未改变这种权限划分，特别是因为合同本身的其他条款规定了为其他目的执行和采取法律措施的可能性。

    对并购（M&A）交易的实际影响

    这一先例强化了准确起草商业合同的重要性，这也是巴西与美国之间跨境（cross-border）交易中需要重点关注的关键点。将争议委托给第三方时，必须明确该专业人士的行动性质及其确切的职权界限。

    • 明确角色定义：合同必须明确声明会计师是作为独立专家还是仲裁员行事。
    • 职权范围：必须详细说明谁有权决定特定争议是否属于第三方的职权范围，第三方被允许解释哪些合同条款，以及可以向当事人提供哪些法律救济。
    • 程序规则：如果意图是让会计师或其他专家实际作为仲裁员发挥作用，并有权决定事实和法律问题，合同必须明确规定这一点，授权这一更广泛的权限，并具体说明适用的仲裁机构规则。

    此外，争议解决结构必须根据所选的适用法律进行检验，因为不同司法管辖区的法院在对待“仲裁”标签的方式上存在差异，并且在确定某一程序是否构成相关法律下的实际仲裁时也有所不同。

    不准确的起草可能导致诉讼在法院和会计师两条战线上被分割，从而产生这些替代机制本欲避免的复杂性、错误、不确定性和程序延迟等确切风险。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • Earnout Disputes: Boundaries Between Expert and Arbitrator

    Earnout Disputes: Boundaries Between Expert and Arbitrator

    In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), especially in complex transactions or those involving foreign investment, the use of earnout clauses is common. An earnout is a price adjustment mechanism where a portion of the payment for the acquired company is conditioned on achieving future financial or operational goals. To ensure agility, cost reduction, and specialized technical knowledge, contracts frequently delegate any disagreements over these calculations to an independent accountant.

    However, a recurring issue often brings these dispute resolution mechanisms to the courts, frustrating the parties’ expectations of efficiency: what is the limit of this professional’s authority? Do they act solely as an accounting expert or do they possess the powers of an arbitrator to decide complex legal issues?

    A recent decision by the Delaware Court of Chancery in the United States—a jurisdiction with strong global influence on corporate litigation and M&A practices, including in Brazil—drew an important dividing line on the subject. The court reaffirmed that the parties’ intent, expressed in the structure and mechanics of the contract, prevails over isolated labels.

    The Case and the Contractual Divergence

    In the case of Georgia Security Solutions, LLC v. NewCBN, LLC, the sale of a video monitoring company included a potential earnout of millions of dollars tied to recurring revenue. The purchase agreement established limits on the buyer’s conduct during the measurement period, guaranteed information rights to the seller, and determined that unresolved disputes regarding the earnout be submitted to an independent accountant for a binding determination. The contract described this determination as being “deemed an arbitral award”.

    When the buyer reported revenue just below the threshold required to trigger the additional payment, the seller objected. The allegation was that the buyer had removed the founder from the operation, relocated essential employees, and intentionally caused accounting problems, constituting a breach of contract.

    Faced with this, the seller resorted to the court. The buyer, in turn, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the dispute belonged exclusively to the accountant, who would be acting in the capacity of an arbitrator. The court, however, rejected this interpretation.

    The Distinction Between Expert and Arbitrator

    The Delaware decision highlighted that the appointment of an accountant, the provision of an informal procedure, and the restriction of the analysis to strictly accounting issues indicate the choice for an expert determination, rather than full arbitration. The court concluded that the simple use of the label “arbitral award” in the contract text did not expand the professional’s scope of action to cover questions of law.

    Thus, it was up to the accountant to apply generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), measure the qualified revenue, and interpret terms strictly linked to this mathematical calculation. On the other hand, the court reserved for itself the jurisdiction to judge the allegations of breach of contractual obligations (covenants), violations of information rights, and the respective financial reparations arising from these wrongful acts.

    The court also noted that an “exclusive remedy” clause did not alter this division of competencies, especially since other provisions of the contract itself provided for the possibility of enforcement and judicial measures for other purposes.

    Practical Implications for M&A Transactions

    This precedent reinforces the importance of precision in drafting business contracts, a critical point of attention also for cross-border transactions between Brazil and the United States. The delegation of disputes to third parties must be clear regarding the nature of the professional’s role and the exact limits of their authority.

    • Clear Definition of Roles: The contract must expressly state whether the accountant will act as an independent expert or as an arbitrator.
    • Scope of Authority: It is essential to detail who has the power to decide whether a specific dispute falls within the third party’s authority, which contractual terms they are permitted to interpret, and what legal remedies they can grant to the parties.
    • Procedural Rules: If the intention is for accountants or other experts to function effectively as arbitrators, with powers to decide questions of fact and law, the contract must explicitly provide for this, authorize this broader jurisdiction, and specify the applicable rules of the arbitral institution.

    Furthermore, the dispute resolution structure must be tested against the chosen applicable law, since courts in different jurisdictions vary in how they treat the label of “arbitration” and determine whether a process actually constitutes an arbitration under the relevant legislation.

    Imprecise drafting can result in fragmented litigation on two fronts—before the court and before the accountant—generating the exact risks of complexity, error, uncertainty, and procedural delay that these alternative mechanisms seek to avoid.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • De Facto Partners and the Right to Demand Accounting from Managers

    De Facto Partners and the Right to Demand Accounting from Managers

    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.

  • 事实股东与要求管理者说明账目的权利

    事实股东与要求管理者说明账目的权利

    巴西高级法院（STJ）作出了一项对巴西公司治理和解决公司冲突具有重要意义的裁决。该法院明确规定，针对公司管理者提起要求说明账目的诉讼，并不要求原告必须正式列入公司章程。STJ认为，只需证明与公司存在法律关系即可。

    为了理解这一见解的影响，有必要澄清商业环境中的两个基本概念。要求说明账目之诉是一种司法程序，在此程序中，当事人要求负责资金管理的人员提供收入、支出和投资的详细情况。而事实股东则是指在公司运营中享有权利并实际参与，但其名字尚未在商业登记处的公司设立文件中正式登记的人。

    公司登记的性质

    在巴西企业法中，公共登记的主要功能是公开公司的行为并对第三方产生效力。然而，股东或投资者之间的关系可以通过共同行动和追求共同经济活动而存在，而无需立即进行文件正规化。

    STJ的裁决巩固了这样一种观点：缺乏形式要件不能作为管理者逃避透明度义务的挡箭牌。管理第三方资金需要持续且有文件记录的账目说明。法院认为，公司或投资关系的存在并不完全取决于其正式登记，从而保护了那些在实践中已经参与运营的人的知情权。

    管理者的信义义务

    企业公司的管理伴随着不可谈判的信义义务，其中最明显的是忠诚和透明度。当高管或管理合伙人承担资本管理职责时，他们代表公司利益和资本所有者行事。STJ的见解强调，这种信义义务不仅由商业登记处的登记触发，而是由商业关系的实际情况触发。

    这在外商直接投资和跨境交易场景中尤为关键。国际投资者通常通过投资工具或合作协议在巴西构建其业务，这些可能需要时间才能完全反映在正式的公司结构中。了解巴西法律体系允许基于法律关系的实际情况要求说明账目，为外国资本提供了更大的可预见性。

    对投资者和高管的实际影响

    这一见解对在巴西市场运营的创始人、投资者和高管具有直接影响。在并购（M&A）、注资或公司重组操作中，签署商业协议与实际更改公共登记之间通常存在时间差。

    对于管理者而言，该规则强调了从任何公司安排一开始就保持严格的财务控制和稳健的公司治理的必要性。即使对于那些仍在等待正式加入公司的商业伙伴，说明账目的义务也同样存在。

    另一方面，对于尚未列入公司章程的投资者和股东，该裁决重申了对其财产权利的保护。为了行使这一权利，投资者必须拥有适当的文件，如初步合同、谅解备忘录或投资协议，这些文件能够证明其与该业务的法律关系。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • Sócio de Fato e o Direito de Exigir Contas de Administradores

    Sócio de Fato e o Direito de Exigir Contas de Administradores

    O Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) proferiu uma decisão relevante para a governança corporativa e a resolução de conflitos societários no Brasil. O tribunal definiu que o ajuizamento de uma ação de exigir contas contra o administrador de uma empresa não demanda que o autor esteja formalmente incluído no contrato social. Para o STJ, basta a comprovação do vínculo jurídico com a sociedade.

    Para compreender o impacto desse entendimento, é importante esclarecer dois conceitos fundamentais no ambiente de negócios. A ação de exigir contas é um procedimento judicial no qual uma pessoa solicita que o responsável pela gestão de recursos apresente um detalhamento das receitas, despesas e investimentos. Já a figura do sócio de fato refere-se àquele que possui direitos e atua na dinâmica da empresa, mas ainda não tem seu nome oficialmente registrado nos atos constitutivos perante a Junta Comercial.

    A Natureza do Registro Societário

    No direito empresarial brasileiro, o registro público tem como principal função conferir publicidade aos atos da empresa e produzir efeitos perante terceiros. No entanto, a relação entre os próprios sócios ou investidores pode existir pela atuação conjunta e pela busca de uma atividade econômica comum, independentemente da regularização documental imediata.

    A decisão do STJ consolida a visão de que a ausência de formalidade não serve como escudo para administradores se furtarem ao dever de transparência. A gestão de recursos de terceiros exige prestação de contas contínua e documentada. O tribunal entende que a existência de uma sociedade ou de um vínculo de investimento não está condicionada exclusivamente à sua inscrição formal, protegendo assim o direito à informação daqueles que já integram a operação na prática.

    O Dever Fiduciário dos Administradores

    A administração de uma sociedade empresária carrega consigo deveres fiduciários inegociáveis, sendo a lealdade e a transparência os mais evidentes. Quando um executivo ou sócio-administrador assume a gestão do capital, ele atua em nome do interesse social e dos titulares desse capital. O entendimento do STJ reforça que esse dever fiduciário não é ativado apenas pelo registro na Junta Comercial, mas sim pela realidade da relação de negócios.

    Isso é especialmente crítico em cenários de investimento estrangeiro direto e operações transfronteiriças. Investidores internacionais frequentemente estruturam suas operações no Brasil por meio de veículos de investimento ou contratos de parceria que podem levar tempo para serem totalmente refletidos nos quadros societários formais. Saber que o sistema jurídico brasileiro permite a exigência de contas com base na realidade do vínculo jurídico confere maior previsibilidade ao capital estrangeiro.

    Impactos Práticos para Investidores e Executivos

    Esse entendimento traz implicações diretas para fundadores, investidores e executivos que atuam no mercado brasileiro. Em operações de fusões e aquisições (M&A), aportes de capital ou reestruturações societárias, é comum que ocorra um lapso temporal entre a assinatura de um acordo comercial e a efetiva alteração dos registros públicos.

    Para os administradores, a regra reforça a necessidade de manter controles financeiros rigorosos e uma governança corporativa sólida desde o início de qualquer arranjo societário. O dever de prestar contas existe mesmo para aqueles parceiros de negócios que ainda aguardam a formalização de sua entrada na sociedade.

    Por outro lado, para os investidores e sócios que ainda não constam no contrato social, a decisão reafirma a proteção de seus direitos patrimoniais. Para exercer esse direito, é fundamental que o investidor possua a documentação adequada, como contratos preliminares, memorandos de entendimentos ou acordos de investimento, que sejam capazes de provar o vínculo jurídico com a operação.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.