In a new episode of the Bitcoin Bank Group’s lawsuit, the court prevented the company’s continued recovery. The decision was made by a second instance judge, Espedito Reis do Amaral, on Wednesday April 8th. in which he ordered expertise to be carried out to verify the actual conditions of the recoveries.
Bitcoin Bank’s total debt to its users It is estimated to total 2,700 million reais (approximately $ 638 million).as determined by the administrator of the lawsuit on November 27, 2019. Although there is a possibility that the company will appeal against this amount.
The class action was filed by 31 people. Zater, the Brazilian exchange office inaugurated some time ago by GBB, has been included in the initial description, but does not appear in the main body of the judgment, indicating that it is an error in the judicial system.
According to local media reports, the company says the judicial recovery is still active and will not appeal the request. It is therefore rather a technical matter of the law, since the decision is not made to suspend or not comply with such a recovery.
This means that people can continue to get involved in the process. In practice, however, the GBB must have specialist knowledge so that the recovery can continue to check if your companies are still able to get up and pay creditors.
This is because Bitcoin Banco has not provided the necessary documents to show the actual accounting and financial situation. Given this scenario, the judge of the 18th Civil Chamber of the Paraná Court of Justice (TJPR) would have been right that the GBB’s request would not have been granted without a preliminary financial and economic assessment of the company.
The expert who will conduct the investigation will be appointed by the court, where he will analyze the viability of the company – both now and in the past. In this way it can be assessed whether a payment by the customer is still possible.
Legal decision on Bitcoin Bank
The judge mentioned that all of the issues that contributed to the allegations of fraud and the recovery request itself “have irreversibly damaged GBB’s image to the point that no one else wants to invest its resources in this platform.”
The group of companies did not meet the requirements of Law 11.101 / 2005 when it no longer submitted documents that clearly showed its accounting situation. And as in the law, it is only art. 52, “in which the judge authorizes the process of judicial recovery in accordance with the documents required by Article 51 of this Act,” the National Judicial Council sent Recommendation No. 57 on October 22, 2019, in which it is recommended that judges do previous work due to a lack of documents Request expertise.
According to Amaral, the implementation of “prior knowledge” despite the lack of a relationship with the other judges is “the measure that objectively does not cause any losses to the parties”.
On the contrary, the judge of the second instance defended that this was the measure to prevent the judicial restoration plan from failing to fail and the judicial machine from moving unnecessarily. “The tightened decision must be reformed comprehensively, since all elements that need to be checked in the case of the judicial recovery must be analyzed before the court proceedings are issued.”
According to the judge, the report will not even be delayed, since he stated that the professional appointed by the trial will have a maximum of 5 days to present the document, in which he will check the debtor’s actual operating conditions and the correctness of the documents. and that the judge will make the decision immediately afterwards without the parties hearing about it. “
Translated version of Article by Cláudio Goldberg Rabin, published on Portaldobitcoin.