Este trabalho examina a disciplina legal do dividendo mínimo obrigatório, a partir da compreensão de suas funções dentro da organização societária e das implicações práticas de sua existência, manifestáveis ao longo do procedimento de formação e partilha do lucro social. Trata-se de estudo que, embora gravite em torno do art. 202 da Lei das Sociedades por Ações, estende-se para os fundamentos do direito societário, excursionando por temas que vão desde as razões da celebração do contrato de sociedade e da função empresarial do lucro até as mais modernas reflexões a respeito do conflito de interesses e do papel dos administradores e dos controladores na sociedade. Além de uma análise detalhada das etapas de apuração, declaração e pagamento do dividendo mínimo obrigatório, o estudo oferece as seguintes principais proposições: (i) a de que o dividendo mínimo obrigatório consiste em solução contratual, estimulada pela lei, para redução dos custos da decisão de partilha do lucro social; (ii) a de que o direito ao dividendo é diverso do direito de participação nos lucros sociais e de que aquele, ao contrário deste último, é tanto derrogável, quanto renunciável; e (iii) a de que o dividendo mínimo obrigatório possui natureza substancialmente específica, reclamando análise autônoma de seu funcionamento. Entre as contribuições esperadas, estão o aperfeiçoamento da aplicação da disciplina legal do dividendo mínimo obrigatório e a retomada da investigação científica da matéria, inexplicavelmente negligenciada pela doutrina brasileira. Estruturalmente, o texto encontra-se dividido em oito capítulos, além da introdução e das considerações finais. O primeiro apresenta o papel do lucro e do dividendo na sociedade. O segundo reproduz o raciocínio doutrinário que conforma o direito do acionista ao dividendo mínino obrigatório, examina as justificativas para sua tutela jurídica e analisa a necessidade contemporânea da manutenção dessa tutela. No terceiro capítulo são discutidas as questões relacionadas à titularidade do dividendo mínimo obrigatório. Os capítulos quarto e quinto tratam, respectivamente, da apuração e da declaração do dividendo mínimo obrigatório. As hipóteses de retenção regular e irregular de lucros sociais são tratadas nos capítulos sexto e sétimo. Do capítulo oitavo constam explicações sobre o pagamento do dividendo mínimo obrigatório. As considerações finais retomam as principais conclusões obtidas ao longo dos capítulos e arrematam o trabalho. / This thesis examines the legal discipline of the minimum mandatory corporate dividend, based on an analysis of its functions within organizations and on the practical implications of its existence, reflected in the procedures for social profits formation and distribution. Although this study centers on article 202 of the Brazilian Corporations Law, it also touches on corporate laws foundations, covering subjects ranging from the reasons for settling a corporate contract and the corporate functions of profits to modern thinking on conflicts of interest and the roles of managers and controlling shareholders. Besides a detailed analysis of the steps in accounting for, declaring, and paying the minimum mandatory dividend, this study also suggests these main propositions: (i) that the minimum mandatory dividend consists of a contractual solution, stimulated by law, that aims to reduce the costs related to the decision to share social profits; (ii) that the right to the minimum mandatory dividend and the right to participate in social profits are not equivalent and that the former, as distinct from the latter, is as revocable as it is renounceable; and (iii) that the minimum mandatory dividend has a substantially singular nature, which requires an independent analysis of its mechanisms. The expected contribution of this study is twofold: to improve the application of the minimum mandatory dividends legal discipline, and to bring to light the scientific investigation of dividend subjects, which inexplicably has been neglected by Brazilian legal doctrine in recent decades. The text is divided into eight chapters, besides the introduction and the final remarks. The first chapter presents the role of profits and dividends in companies. The second explains the doctrinal rationality that sustains the right of shareholders to the minimum mandatory dividend, examines the justifications for its jurisdictional protection, and analyzes the contemporary necessity for this protection. In the third chapter, issues related 181 to the minimum mandatory dividends ownership are debated. The fourth and fifth chapters concern, respectively, accounting for and declaring minimum mandatory dividends. The hypotheses of regular and irregular retention of social profits are discussed in the sixth and seventh chapters. Explanations of the rules for paying the minimum mandatory dividend are given in the eighth chapter. The final remarks section distills the main conclusions from the eight chapters.

One of the objectives of the Securities Regulation Code on Takeovers and Mergers ("the Code") was to achieve neutrality of treatment of minority shareholders in takeover situations irrespective of the method employed to effect the takeover. This objective has not yet been achieved despite the inclusion of Rule 29 in the Code. Different levels of minority protection apply depending on the method used to effect a takeover. Asset takeovers are also excluded from the ambit of the Code. It is suggested that capital reductions and security conversions be prohibited to effect a takeover unless the Code is applicable to the transaction. The scheme of arrangement procedure, with certain suggested amendments, should be retained as a takeover method. It is further suggested that section 228 of the Companies Act be amended to ensure greater minority shareholder protection but that asset takeovers not be included within the ambit of the Code at this stage. / Private Law / LL.M.

One of the objectives of the Securities Regulation Code on Takeovers and Mergers ("the Code") was to achieve neutrality of treatment of minority shareholders in takeover situations irrespective of the method employed to effect the takeover. This objective has not yet been achieved despite the inclusion of Rule 29 in the Code. Different levels of minority protection apply depending on the method used to effect a takeover. Asset takeovers are also excluded from the ambit of the Code. It is suggested that capital reductions and security conversions be prohibited to effect a takeover unless the Code is applicable to the transaction. The scheme of arrangement procedure, with certain suggested amendments, should be retained as a takeover method. It is further suggested that section 228 of the Companies Act be amended to ensure greater minority shareholder protection but that asset takeovers not be included within the ambit of the Code at this stage. / Private Law / LL.M.

Submitted by Joao Rodrigo Maier (jmaier@tavanomaier.com.br) on 2018-09-19T22:59:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Final JoaoMaier Set2018.v3.pdf: 637076 bytes, checksum: 8f112ee15ab7de85bdb200026a094649 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Joana Martorini (joana.martorini@fgv.br) on 2018-09-20T14:12:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Final JoaoMaier Set2018.v3.pdf: 637076 bytes, checksum: 8f112ee15ab7de85bdb200026a094649 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzane Guimarães (suzane.guimaraes@fgv.br) on 2018-09-20T16:06:33Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Final JoaoMaier Set2018.v3.pdf: 637076 bytes, checksum: 8f112ee15ab7de85bdb200026a094649 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-09-20T16:06:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Final JoaoMaier Set2018.v3.pdf: 637076 bytes, checksum: 8f112ee15ab7de85bdb200026a094649 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-08-27 / Com o objetivo de aferir a aplicação de lei supletiva quando facultativa e quando obrigatória, notadamente para compreender as implicações da sujeição da sociedade limitada às normas das sociedades anônimas decorrente da opção dos sócios, este trabalho analisa algumas possibilidades de aplicabilidade da regência supletiva da Lei das Sociedades Anônimas à sociedade limitada em razão da faculdade prevista no parágrafo único do artigo 1.053 do Código Civil. Procura verificar também, mediante análise da doutrina e jurisprudência dos tribunais superiores e de alguns tribunais estaduais, em que circunstâncias era aplicada a Lei das Sociedades Anônimas na vigência do Decreto nº 3.708/19, que determinava, de forma imperativa, a aplicação da lei do anonimato. Pretende-se, por conseguinte, neste trabalho, mostrar a importância de fazer constar no contrato social ex ante, situações específicas estabelecidas na Lei das Sociedades Anônimas - convenientes aos sócios e à sociedade - e não albergadas no Código Civil, ainda que haja previsão genérica da aplicação supletiva da lei do anonimato, de forma a permitir que os sócios tenham mecanismos pré-definidos para condução dos negócios sociais e mitigar, nestes pontos, a possibilidade de intervenção judicial. / With the purpose of ascertaining the application of an alternative law, when it is optional and when it is mandatory, notably to understand the implications of the subjection of a limited liability company to the rules of joint-stock companies, as a result of a choice by the quotaholders, this paper analyzes some of the possibilities of alternative application of the Corporations Law to a limited liability company, due to the option given in the sole paragraph of article 1,053 of the Civil Code. It also seeks to verify, by means of an analysis of the doctrine and the case law of the superior courts and some state courts, under which circumstances the Corporations Law was applied during the term of effectiveness of Decree No. 3,708/19, which set forth, in an imperative manner, the application of the law of joint-stock companies. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show the importance of including in the ex ante articles of association specific situations established in the Corporations Law – convenient to the quotaholders and to the company – and not covered by the Civil Code, even if there is a generic provision for the alternative application of the joint-stock companies law, so as to allow the quotaholders to have previously defined mechanisms to carry out the company’s businesses and mitigate, in such points, the possibility of court intervention.

One of the recognised ways through which a firm may increase its market share or reorganise its presence in a market is through a merger. A merger occurs when independent firms combine their businesses. Section 12A of the Competition Act, 1998, provides two grounds in terms of which mergers must be evaluated by competition authorities. These are competition and public interest considerations. The Act is reticent on which, between the two considerations, should take precedence in the event that the two conflict. The anterior purpose of this study is therefore to provide an in-depth analysis on which consideration must take precedence in the event of conflict. On analysis, the majority of case law suggests that the competition considerations must take precedence. This observation is also buttressed by a significant amount of literature, which holds that in merger analysis, the public interests only play a secondary role to the competition inquiry. / Mercantile Law / LL.M. (Mercantile Law)