Anatel (National Telecommunications Agency) informed this Monday (7) that it will reassess the authorization for the sale of mobile assets of the operator Oi, after an annulment request is filed with the regulatory agency.
The prior consent to the sale of assets to rivals TIM, Claro and Vivo was unanimously given in extraordinary meetings of the agency held on January 28 and 31.
However, Copel Telecomunicações asked for the decision to be annulled, according to a document obtained by Reuters.
The company claimed to Anatel that the director Emmanoel Campelo could not have interim presided over the two meetings at which the operation was approved. According to Copel, the measure “irremediably” tainted the deliberation of the collegiate with illegality.
Copel’s request was filed last Thursday (3). According to Anatel, the analysis will follow the regulatory deadlines for cases of this type.
According to the agency’s rules, interested parties will be summoned and will have 15 days to manifest. Afterwards, the process will be instructed, with a new period of ten days for those involved to present final reasons.
The next step is to send the case files to the Specialized Federal Attorney’s Office, an agency linked to the AGU (Advocacy-General of the Union) that works at Anatel, to issue an opinion. Only then will the collegiate board make a new decision on the authorization of the sale of Oi Móvel.
“It is important to note that, until there is a final decision on the aforementioned case, all acts performed by Anatel are presumed to be legal and remain valid,” said the regulatory agency.
The sale of Oi’s mobile assets was analyzed at Anatel’s extraordinary meetings “due to the relevance and urgency of the prior consent” given the deadline for closing the Oi Group’s judicial reorganization process, on March 31, according to regulatory agency itself.
Therefore, the reanalysis of the sales process can generate insecurity regarding the fulfillment of these deadlines.
In its annulment request, Copel highlighted that this position was expressed by the body’s own legal area, after being consulted.
The company stated that the understanding of Anatel’s attorney is that, as of January 24, former board member Raphael Garcia de Souza should leave office, which happened, Copel said. Thus, the superintendent with the longest time in office should have assumed the position of president of Anatel, “which did not happen, although on January 28, 2022, the Replacement List in force was published in the DOU”, said the Copel.
At the same time, the MPF (Federal Public Ministry) asked CADE (Administrative Council for Economic Defense) to veto the operation.
The regional attorney of the Republic and MPF representative at Cade, Waldir Alves, also requested an analysis of the alleged violation of the rule that requires informing the agency in advance about merger, acquisition or consortium formation operations.
He also asked for the opening of a process to investigate possible anti-competitive practices by the three interested parties.
Oi said that the prosecutor’s opinion does not consider the importance of the operation for the company’s economic recovery.
Vivo stated that all legal procedures were followed. TIM stated that “there was never any consortium, but three different operations”. Claro had not commented until the conclusion of this text.
(With Reuters)
I have over 8 years of experience in the news industry. I have worked for various news websites and have also written for a few news agencies. I mostly cover healthcare news, but I am also interested in other topics such as politics, business, and entertainment. In my free time, I enjoy writing fiction and spending time with my family and friends.
