Esta dissertação analisa os limites e a conveniência da vinculação de administradores a acordo de acionistas. Com a promulgação da lei nº 10.303, de 31 de outubro de 2001, foram incluídos os §§ 8º e 9º, ao art. 118 da lei nº 6.404, de 15 de dezembro de 1976 (LSA), que indisputavelmente passaram a vincular os administradores de companhias aos termos dos acordos de acionistas arquivados em suas sedes. Desde então, inexiste consenso doutrinário e jurisprudencial acerca dos limites de tal vinculação. A dissertação analisa, pois, as principais posições doutrinárias que variam desde a vinculação genérica, até a vinculação relativa. A primeira é capaz de abranger todos os atos da administração; a segunda, por sua vez, limita a possibilidade de vinculação da administração apenas com relação aos atos que não sejam de sua competência privativa previstos em lei ou pelo estatuto e, ainda, preserva o poder (dever) finalístico do administrador, previsto no art. 154 da LSA, de buscar e privilegiar o interesse da companhia. A dissertação tece, ainda, diversos comentários e posicionamentos sobre a conveniência de se vincular administradores. / This dissertation analyses the limits and the convenience of binding administrators to the shareholders\' agreement. With the promulgation of law nº 10,303, of October 31, 2001, §§ 8º and 9º were included to the article 118 of law nº 6,404, of December 15, 1976 (LSA), which indisputably began to bind companies administrators to the terms of the shareholder agreements filed in their headquarters. Since then, there is no consensus in the doctrine or the precedents about the limits of such binding situation. The dissertation analyses, thus, the main doctrinal positions ranging from the generic binding form until the relative one. The first is able to cover all acts of the administration; the second, on it turn, limits the possibility of binding the administration only with respect to acts that are not part of its competence provided for by law or by companies by-laws, and also preserves the finalistic power (duty) of the administrator provided for in article 154 of the LSA, of pursuing and giving priority to the companies interest. The dissertation also weaves several commentaries and positions on the desirability to bind administrators.

This study integrates settlement and community archaeology in investigating pre-colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish community organization between 2,550-100 years before present (cal B.P.). Archaeological housepits provide a basic unit of analysis and proxy for households through which community organization manifests in relationships of form and arrangement among housepit settlements in the lower Fraser River Watershed of southwestern British Columbia. This study focuses on spatial and temporal data from 11 housepit settlements (114 housepits) in the upriver portion of the broader study area (mainland Gulf of Georgia Region). These settlements were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Archaeology Project (2003-2006). The findings of this study suggest a trajectory of continuity and change in community organization among the Stó:lō-Coast Salish over the 2,500 years preceding European colonization. Shifts between heterarchical and hierarchical forms of social organization, and corporate to network modes of relations represent societal transformations that become expressed by about 550 cal B.P. Transformations of social structure and community organization are manifest as increasing variation in housepit sizes and settlement patterns, and the development of central arrangements in both intra- and inter-settlement patterns. In the Late Period (ca. 550-100 cal. B.P.), the largest and most complex settlements in the region, including the largest housepits, develop on islands and at central places or hubs in the region’s communication system along the Fraser River. These complex sets of household relations within and between settlements represent an expansive form of community organization. Tracing this progression provides insight into the process of change among Stó:lō pithouse communities. Societal change develops as a shift expressed first at a broad-based collective level between settlements, and then at a more discreet individual level between households. This process speaks to the development of communities formed within a complex political-economic system widely practiced throughout the region. This pattern survived the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century and was maintained by the Stó:lō up to the Colonial Era. Administration of British assimilation policies (e.g., Indian Legislation) instituted after 1858 effectively disrupted but failed to completely replace deeply rooted expressions of Stó:lō community that developed during preceding millennia.

This study integrates settlement and community archaeology in investigating pre-colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish community organization between 2,550-100 years before present (cal B.P.). Archaeological housepits provide a basic unit of analysis and proxy for households through which community organization manifests in relationships of form and arrangement among housepit settlements in the lower Fraser River Watershed of southwestern British Columbia. This study focuses on spatial and temporal data from 11 housepit settlements (114 housepits) in the upriver portion of the broader study area (mainland Gulf of Georgia Region). These settlements were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Archaeology Project (2003-2006). The findings of this study suggest a trajectory of continuity and change in community organization among the Stó:lō-Coast Salish over the 2,500 years preceding European colonization. Shifts between heterarchical and hierarchical forms of social organization, and corporate to network modes of relations represent societal transformations that become expressed by about 550 cal B.P. Transformations of social structure and community organization are manifest as increasing variation in housepit sizes and settlement patterns, and the development of central arrangements in both intra- and inter-settlement patterns. In the Late Period (ca. 550-100 cal. B.P.), the largest and most complex settlements in the region, including the largest housepits, develop on islands and at central places or hubs in the region’s communication system along the Fraser River. These complex sets of household relations within and between settlements represent an expansive form of community organization. Tracing this progression provides insight into the process of change among Stó:lō pithouse communities. Societal change develops as a shift expressed first at a broad-based collective level between settlements, and then at a more discreet individual level between households. This process speaks to the development of communities formed within a complex political-economic system widely practiced throughout the region. This pattern survived the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century and was maintained by the Stó:lō up to the Colonial Era. Administration of British assimilation policies (e.g., Indian Legislation) instituted after 1858 effectively disrupted but failed to completely replace deeply rooted expressions of Stó:lō community that developed during preceding millennia.

Esta dissertação analisa os limites e a conveniência da vinculação de administradores a acordo de acionistas. Com a promulgação da lei nº 10.303, de 31 de outubro de 2001, foram incluídos os §§ 8º e 9º, ao art. 118 da lei nº 6.404, de 15 de dezembro de 1976 (LSA), que indisputavelmente passaram a vincular os administradores de companhias aos termos dos acordos de acionistas arquivados em suas sedes. Desde então, inexiste consenso doutrinário e jurisprudencial acerca dos limites de tal vinculação. A dissertação analisa, pois, as principais posições doutrinárias que variam desde a vinculação genérica, até a vinculação relativa. A primeira é capaz de abranger todos os atos da administração; a segunda, por sua vez, limita a possibilidade de vinculação da administração apenas com relação aos atos que não sejam de sua competência privativa previstos em lei ou pelo estatuto e, ainda, preserva o poder (dever) finalístico do administrador, previsto no art. 154 da LSA, de buscar e privilegiar o interesse da companhia. A dissertação tece, ainda, diversos comentários e posicionamentos sobre a conveniência de se vincular administradores. / This dissertation analyses the limits and the convenience of binding administrators to the shareholders\' agreement. With the promulgation of law nº 10,303, of October 31, 2001, §§ 8º and 9º were included to the article 118 of law nº 6,404, of December 15, 1976 (LSA), which indisputably began to bind companies administrators to the terms of the shareholder agreements filed in their headquarters. Since then, there is no consensus in the doctrine or the precedents about the limits of such binding situation. The dissertation analyses, thus, the main doctrinal positions ranging from the generic binding form until the relative one. The first is able to cover all acts of the administration; the second, on it turn, limits the possibility of binding the administration only with respect to acts that are not part of its competence provided for by law or by companies by-laws, and also preserves the finalistic power (duty) of the administrator provided for in article 154 of the LSA, of pursuing and giving priority to the companies interest. The dissertation also weaves several commentaries and positions on the desirability to bind administrators.

This study integrates settlement and community archaeology in investigating pre-colonial Stó:lō-Coast Salish community organization between 2,550-100 years before present (cal B.P.). Archaeological housepits provide a basic unit of analysis and proxy for households through which community organization manifests in relationships of form and arrangement among housepit settlements in the lower Fraser River Watershed of southwestern British Columbia. This study focuses on spatial and temporal data from 11 housepit settlements (114 housepits) in the upriver portion of the broader study area (mainland Gulf of Georgia Region). These settlements were mapped and tested as part of the Fraser Valley Archaeology Project (2003-2006). The findings of this study suggest a trajectory of continuity and change in community organization among the Stó:lō-Coast Salish over the 2,500 years preceding European colonization. Shifts between heterarchical and hierarchical forms of social organization, and corporate to network modes of relations represent societal transformations that become expressed by about 550 cal B.P. Transformations of social structure and community organization are manifest as increasing variation in housepit sizes and settlement patterns, and the development of central arrangements in both intra- and inter-settlement patterns. In the Late Period (ca. 550-100 cal. B.P.), the largest and most complex settlements in the region, including the largest housepits, develop on islands and at central places or hubs in the region’s communication system along the Fraser River. These complex sets of household relations within and between settlements represent an expansive form of community organization. Tracing this progression provides insight into the process of change among Stó:lō pithouse communities. Societal change develops as a shift expressed first at a broad-based collective level between settlements, and then at a more discreet individual level between households. This process speaks to the development of communities formed within a complex political-economic system widely practiced throughout the region. This pattern survived the smallpox epidemic of the late 18th century and was maintained by the Stó:lō up to the Colonial Era. Administration of British assimilation policies (e.g., Indian Legislation) instituted after 1858 effectively disrupted but failed to completely replace deeply rooted expressions of Stó:lō community that developed during preceding millennia. / Arts, Faculty of / Anthropology, Department of / Graduate

Submitted by Diego do Nascimento Kiçula (dkicula@gmail.com) on 2017-05-25T01:44:56Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Diego do Nascimento Kiçula - Final.pdf: 1985627 bytes, checksum: 241e43d187035b0e8dafaafd60caef7e (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzinei Teles Garcia Garcia (suzinei.garcia@fgv.br) on 2017-05-25T11:39:43Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Diego do Nascimento Kiçula - Final.pdf: 1985627 bytes, checksum: 241e43d187035b0e8dafaafd60caef7e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-05-25T12:35:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação Diego do Nascimento Kiçula - Final.pdf: 1985627 bytes, checksum: 241e43d187035b0e8dafaafd60caef7e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-04-25 / The Brazilian Law 12,846/2013 has brought innumerable innovations to Brazilian legal order, creating important mechanisms for the accountability for Companies involved in acts of corruption, or under the terms of the law, in acts contrary to Public Administration. Among these innovations is included the §2 of Article 4 of the AntiCorruption Law, which establishes that the associated companies, controlling companies and controlled companies are jointly and severally liable for compensation for damages and payment of fines caused by a related company. In this sense, the Law seeks to regulate, in its scope, one of the most relevant subjects of modern corporate law. It’s seeks to establish the rules for the application of its sanctions within the context of the Corporate Groups. Indeed, the concern of the national legislature to establish a rule on the subject seems to be legitimate, because this is the recurrent form of organization of large national and multinational companies. It is the analysis of these two institutes that this dissertation takes care wondering: how does the imposition of the solidarity of the law takes place? What is the best interpretation that can be given to the question so that, on the one hand, the law can guarantee the effective application of its sanctions and, on the other hand, the dictates of the legislation does not make impracticable the ventures developed by Corporate Groups. Thus, from the contextualization of the phenomenon of corruption, the innovations brought by the law and it’s practical application until the moment are presented, so that, in the end, the problem brought by the aforementioned §2 of art. 4 of the Law can be identified and then a suggestion of a possible solution to the theme can be made. / A Lei 12.846/2013 trouxe inúmeras inovações ao Direito brasileiro, criando importantes mecanismos para a responsabilização das pessoas jurídicas envolvidas em atos de corrupção, ou nos termos da lei, em atos contrários a Administração Pública. Dentre tais inovações inclui-se aquela contida no §2º do Artigo 4º da Lei Anticorrupção, que determina que as empresas coligadas, controladoras e controladas são solidariamente responsáveis pela reparação do dano e pagamento das multas ocasionadas por uma empresa a ela ligada. Nesse sentido, a Lei busca normatizar, em seu âmbito, um dos mais relevantes temas do direito societário moderno, ou seja, a referida legislação busca estabelecer as regras para aplicação de suas sanções dentro do contexto dos grupos de sociedades. Com efeito, a preocupação do legislador nacional em estabelecer um regramento sobre o tema parece ser legítima, uma vez que essa é a forma de organização recorrente dos grandes empreendimentos nacionais e multinacionais. É na análise do encontro desses dois institutos que se desenvolve a presente dissertação: como se dá a imposição da solidariedade da lei? Qual a melhor interpretação que pode ser dada a questão para que, por um lado, a lei consiga garantir a aplicação efetiva de suas sanções e, por outro lado, os ditames da legislação não tornem inviáveis os empreendimentos desenvolvidos pelas sociedades plúrimas. Assim, a partir da contextualização do fenômeno da corrupção, apresentam-se as inovações trazidas pela lei e sua aplicação prática até o momento para, ao final, colocar a problemática trazida pelo aludido §2º do art. 4º da Lei e então, sugerir uma possível solução para o tema.

D’abord cantonnés au secteur industriel, les groupes de sociétés se sont progressivement développés dans l’ensemble des secteurs d’activités et sont devenus en quelques années des acteurs incontournables de la vie économique et sociale. Le regroupement d’entreprises sous la domination d’une société-mère s’est accompagné d’une recherche d’unité dans les modes de gestion et les statuts sociaux déployés dans chaque entreprise les composant. C’est dans ce contexte que s’est développée la négociation d’accords de groupe. De simple expérimentation issue de la pratique, la négociation collective de groupe est devenue un véritable niveau de négociation collective reconnue par le législateur. L’accord de groupe est désormais consacré comme une norme créatrice de droits et d’obligations entre employeurs et salariés du groupe, mais sa place dans la hiérarchie des normes n’a pas été précisée. Cette situation génère de nombreuses interrogations quant à sa portée et à ses limites : chaque apport du législateur à la construction du régime juridique des accords de groupe soulève de nouvelles difficultés avec lesquelles les partenaires sociaux doivent composer. La présente étude tentera de mettre en évidence les solutions proposées par les partenaires sociaux pour affiner et sécuriser le régime juridique applicable aux accords de groupe. / Originally confined to the industrial sector, corporate groups have gradually developed in all sectors and have become in just a few years key players in economic and social life. The business combination under supervision of parent company was accompanied by a search for unity in management methods and employees’ status. The negotiation of group agreements has developed in this context. Simple hands-on experience at the beginning, group collective bargaining has become a real level of collective bargaining recognized by the legislator. The group agreement is now set out as a standard which establishing rights and obligations between employers and employees of the group, but its place in the hierarchy of norms has not been specified. This situation generates many questions about its scope and its limits: each legislator’s contribution to the group agreements’ legal regime raises new difficulties that the social partners have to deal with. This study will attempt to identify the solutions proposed by the social partners in order to refine and secure the group agreements’ legal regime.

La organización productiva descentralizada y flexible que, bajo el impulso de las nuevas tecnologías y la globalización, viene sustituyendo a partir del último cuarto del siglo XX al fordismo de inspiración keynesiana, está deteriorando los mercados laborales, lo que supone una precarización de las condiciones de empleo, un notable repliegue de los «Estados del bienestar» y la desactivación del factor trabajo. Superado el tradicional principio de «unicidad» empresarial, un empresario «complejo» y múltiple –el grupo de empresas-, caracterizado por su dificultad identificatoria, absorbe un protagonismo creciente, en un contexto normativo-laboral casi desregulado, en el que al margen del fraude, la dirección unitaria de las empresas agrupadas no implica deducir de su funcionamiento una responsabilidad (solidaria). En esa «cierta unidad económica» que constituye el grupo, se detecta un punto de conflicto o desconexión, entre las facultades empresariales decisorias -unidad de decisión- y las organizativas –dependencia y ajenidad de frutos-. / The decentralized and flexible productive organization, boosted by globalization, new information and knowledge technologies, has been replacing the Fordist Keynesian inspiration since the last quarter of the 20th century; besides it has been worsening the labour markets, which involves a precariousness of employment conditions and an outstanding backing down of “welfare states” and job factor neutralization. Once the traditional principle of business uniqueness has been overwhelmed, a complex and multiple –the corporate group- employer arises; this employer is characterized by the difficulty of being identified and acquires an increasingly featuring role, inside a regulatory working context almost deregulated, where, on the fringe fraud, the unitarian corporate group management doesn’t imply deducing a solidarity liability from its activity. Inside that “particular economical unity” made up by the group, a deal-breaker or a gap is detected between the decision-making management faculties –decision unity- and the organizational ones –dependence and another person’s benefits-.