Pittsburgh Markets

When the economic recovery has not yet taken shape, it already begins to worry about the continuity in the rise in commodity prices, especially of energy commodities, since they could lead to a situation similar to the that occurred in 2008. The speculative component in these quotes puts at risk the growth of the economy and can even generate situations of stagflation. It is for this reason that increasingly more voices to orders of regulation of the derivatives markets are added to limit speculative component, thus contain the rise in commodity prices quotes generating greater predictability in them. The main concerns are fixed in energy commodity prices for its direct impact on production costs. In relation to this topic, in the United States, Gary Gensler, Chairman of Commodity Futures Trading Comission (CFTC) said on Wednesday of last week: I think that we should consider seriously to set limits on the (speculative) positions in the energy futures markets.

For Gensler, not only must regulate the positions in the energy futures markets but also in all those commodities of finite supply. The regulator of futures on commodities trading wants to limit the number of contracts investors can accumulate to avoid what is called excessive speculation. In this sense, the main debate is how these limits, a topic that will be key to the business of big banks and investment tools. Brazil Meanwhile, which seeks to play a role of greater relevance in the international context, announced that it will present before the G-20 in the meeting which will take place in London in early September (preparatory to the meeting at the end of that month in) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), a proposal to regulate the global derivatives markets. Among the measures to be implemented, Brazil will ask first, that all operations in the futures market are registered. Also looks for boost the establishment of centres of clearing and settlement, similar to that already exist in countries such as Brazil and which oblige the investor to deposit a guarantee to cover its operations with derivatives.

Penal Procedural Code

Of the norm anteladamente glossed, we see that in this opportunity the term to that we have come making reference, from this regulation, changes drastically and the one of 30 days settles down first of all, calendars, so that in their maximum end is the one of six months. Situation different from which previously came regulating. Before such situations it must indicate, that the mentioned norms, were dictated to the shelter and in the light of the use of the Penal Procedural Code of 1991, the same that kept silence on this respect. In so understood, and when entering use the Penal Procedural Code of 2004, tacitly has such standardisations voted and sanctioned prior to dacin of this Code, would have been countermanded tacitly, to the regulated being the matter (of the principle of opportunity and reparatorios agreements), by this one new norm (NCPP), and in addition when procedural existing an incongruity as far as the penal system that inspired to both procedural statutes (inquisitive Mixed System versus accusatory System with adversariales characteristics). However, of explicit way these norms have not been countermanded by the organ sent that them, but we understand that when entering use the NCPP, would have countermanded all those norms given prior to their entrance in use. Then, when affirming it has then that the norm that at the moment regulates the term for the payment of the civil repair (in the reparatorios application of the opportunity principle and agreements), it is the Penal Procedural Code of 2004, and like so, when indicating this one, in its numeral 03, that when the parts are not agreed with respect to the term of the payment of the civil repair, will be the Public prosecutor establishes that it, not exceeding the nine months; it must be included/understood on the other hand in interpretation, that if the parts reach an agreement with respect to the term of the payment of the repair of the damage, this one validly could exceed the nine months, being to freedom and criterion of the parts to establish this term. In that order of ideas, the parts or could decide a greater term to the nine months for the payment the RC, for example, 12 months or 18 months, being valid and legal this agreement. Since the will of the parts is superior to the established thing by the Public prosecutor, because of which if these in use of its faculties, going voluntarily to the call of the principle of opportunity or agreement reparatorio, they indicate his assent with respect to his content and term, the Public prosecutor CANNOT maintain that the maximum term to that they must arrive for the payment, is solely of NINE MONTHS, since if the will of the parts is to decide that it is pleased the civil repair in a greater term to the nine months, the Public prosecutor must respect this agreement meticulously. Finally and closing ideas, we will say that of normado by the literal article 02 03 of the Penal Procedural Code of 2004, it is inferred that when arriving the parts at an agreement with respect to the term of the payment of the repair of the caused damage (reparatorios Principle of Opportunity or agreements), this one good could exceed the nine months, in attention, as already has been indicated, to the will of the parts, which cannot be not known nor be avoided by the Public prosecutor.