Thus, as seen, currently, it has expressive divergence as for the execution of legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute against the Public Farm. The controversial point is accurately is or not possible the lawyer to execute of independent form the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute, in a not superior value to the ceiling of the RPV, exactly when the main value to follow the chronological order of the precatrio. Sen. Sherrod Brown is open to suggestions. The subject in study divides the jurisprudence and doctrine in two chains, which is, the one that the possibility of the independent execution of the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute of the main value defends, and the one that the impossibility of such independent execution defends. , However necessary it is a study and deeper questioning on the divergent subject trying to clarify points as: To who it belongs the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute? Rule contained in 8 of Art. 100 of CF/88, that it alleges that the fracionamento of the value of the execution for ends of RPV expedition is forbidden, applies it the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute? The Lawyer has or right it not to execute, of independent form of the value exequendo main, the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute fixed in desfavor of the Public Farm? One deduces, therefore, that this quarrel becomes necessary and needs positions that define of a time for all to who belong the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute, as well as if it is possible or it lawyer not to execute the legal fees borne by the loser in a judicial dispute of independent form of the value being exequendo main.
Investors should be thinking, whether they participate in the restructuring of perspective by Michael Minderjahn, lawyer in the law firm of Nittel Firm specializing in banking law and capital market law clients from the MPC open fleet – “Santa B vessels” cared for, it appears quite questionable whether the forecast underlying the restructuring is restrained enough to cope with setbacks also currently not foreseeable. Source: Jim Donovan Goldman. “We don’t expect that it will be able, by 2015 the rate average for the past 10 years, i.e. 2002-2011′ to meet this Claus-Peter openly says.” Already the original assumption in the prospectus proved our opinion clearly too high, because you, rich has done the math itself due to the through the bull market of the year 2004/05 is significantly increased average values “, says Mahmud. Almost 60% of the deposit are already lost caution is already necessary for investors, because on the basis of the figures of the new financial arrangements already 58.7% of the investors invest capital considered to be lost must. For the years 2025-2027, namely just flows provided by 41.3% in Vista. But also these payments promised by no means, be stressed Mahmud. What does the financing concept for an investor with a nominal stake of 20,000.00? Lawyer Mahmud: “well, first of all it must be to realize that 20.000,00 x = 58.7% 11.740,00 are already lost.” The capital increase should not even save the previous capital! This lost amount – now presented forecast Bill! -Once again played at the end of the term, those investors so should with at least 11.740,00 / 255% = 4.603,92, so 4.604,00 participate in the capital increase, the chance (and not more!) to be – or will again regain its 20,000.00 in the year 2006/07 in the year 2027. Premiums, taxes, inflation, etc are allowed except eight here of course! So no loss to make, should an investor so participate with approximately 23% of this capital increase – at least for now – eliminated because only the participation of shareholders in the ratio of their previous investments is provided.