123miles: office fees harm consumers – 01/19/2024 – Market

The judge of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais Alexandre Victor de Carvalho determined that 123milhas will need to pay R$ 2.3 million to KPMG and the law firm Juliana Morais for the prior finding made by them in the case of judicial recovery of the travel company.

The amount is considered extremely high by experts and lawyers involved in the process and, according to creditor representatives, the disbursement could affect the company’s ability to pay.

Generally, magistrates set values ​​in the tens of thousands as payment for this service.

The prior finding is an expert opinion carried out before the judge decides whether or not the judicial recovery process can be continued.

At this stage, law firms and consultancies are appointed by the judge in the case to verify, within five days, whether the company is, in fact, in operation and has gathered all the documentation required by law.

Since 2020, prior verification has been provided for by law, although the text does not oblige magistrates to determine it.

For this reason, in cases of judicial recovery of very large companies, the Court does not usually ask for prior verification. This was the case, for example, of Americanas, Light and Samarco — the latter’s process is also taking place at TJ-MG.

According to experts, when it is clear that the company is still in operation, there is no need to require the instrument.

In the 123milhas case, judge Claudia Helena Batista initially ruled out the expert opinion, but Banco do Brasil —the company’s largest creditor— appealed the decision and won in the second instance.

In the decision, judge Alexandre Victor de Carvalho named KPMG and the law firm Juliana Morais as responsible for the prior finding and determined that they should be remunerated in the amount of 0.1% of the case for the service.

As the cause is valued at R$2.3 billion, the companies will receive a combined R$2.3 million.

“In view of the high degree of complexity of the proposed topic and the extent of the work developed, as well as the dedication and promptness demonstrated by the experts in fulfilling their duties, in addition to the legal and economic significance of the expertise for the parties, I consider it appropriate to establish his fees at 0.1% of the value of the case”, decided the magistrate in December.

Wanted by Sheethe declined to comment.

On January 9, after 123milhas set aside just R$1 million of its budget to pay for the preliminary finding, the judge again ordered the company to pay the R$2.3 million.

“The prior verification has to be presented within five days, imagine that costing R$2 million, it seems like a lot to me. This reduces the debtor’s ability to pay her creditors, because the more costly the process is, the less money is left to pay the creditors”, says Daniel Carnio, former judge of the 1st Bankruptcy and Judicial Recovery Court of São Paulo.

He is considered the precursor in determining expertise of this type.

Lawyers involved in the case also commented with the Sheet that the values ​​are high. They did not want to identify themselves.

When contacted, 123milhas said it would not speak out, as did the Juliana Morais office. KPMG only said that the fees are set by the judge in the case according to legal criteria.

As large cases of judicial recovery do not usually have prior verification, it is difficult to compare amounts generally paid by the Courts.

However, there are examples that can be evaluated: in the judicial recovery of the Handz Group, owner of Gocil Serviços de Vigilância e Segurança, the Court set R$50 thousand for the prior finding.

The company’s liabilities were R$1.8 billion. In the judicial recovery of the UTC Group, which had R$3.4 billion in debt, the Court set R$40,000 for the expertise.

The highest honorarium found by Sheet for this type of payment is the case of Gramado Parks, in which the Court set R$100,000 for the service. The company’s liabilities were R$1.6 billion.

Experts assess that the complexity of carrying out the preliminary finding is not necessarily linked to the size of the company’s debts undergoing judicial recovery.

“This will depend on the organization of the company’s accounts, if it has been organized correctly it makes it easier to verify”, explains Paulo Cesar Azevedo, coordinator of collective protection at the Public Defender’s Office of Minas Gerais.

Carvalho also decided that each of the three judicial administrators of 123milhas will earn 0.5% of the value of the case for the service provided throughout the process.

Each of them will earn R$11.5 million for a much more complex service that can last years, while only the prior verification, usually done in five days, will guarantee two of them R$2.3 million — R$1.15 million for each.

“The fees of administrators and experts are not included in the creditors’ payment list and are made in advance. In other words, first the administrators will be paid, then the company’s labor claims and, only then, what remains of 123milhas’ assets will be paid to the thousands of injured consumers”, explains Azevedo.

“[Os valores pagos no caso da 123milhas] are astronomical. Although it is a media case, involving billions of reais, we believe that these values ​​are far above what the market practices. The criterion to be measured would be the market value of this service, not exactly the value of the case”, says Francisco Demontiê, president of the Brazilian Citizenship and Consumer Association of the State of Mato Grosso do Sul.

The association filed a collective action in court against 123milhas and is following the case closely.

“This situation will be reflected in the future for consumers, who are the biggest losers with this judicial recovery and with all the ridiculous work that was done by 123milhas over time”, he states.

The MP-MG (Public Ministry of Minas Gerais) can still appeal the decision. At the end of December, the body appealed Carvalho’s decision that replaced two of the three judicial administrators until then in the case with KPMG and the firm Juliana Morais.

The appeal, however, does not contest the fees paid for the prior verification of the case. When contacted, the MP-MG said he would not comment.