Common use of Clause 27 Clause in Contracts

Clause 27. 4. The present Contract may have its caducity declared by act of the Director Council of Anatel, preceded of an administrative law suit that assures full right of defense to the Concessionaire, in the hypotheses of: I – transfer of partnership control, merger, separation, transformation of the Concessionaire or even incorporation or reduction in its capital stock without the previous approval of Anatel; II – irregular transfer of the Contract; III – non fulfillment of the transfer commitment referred to in clause 19.1 and in article 87 of Law No. 9,472 of 1997; IV – bankruptcy or dissolution of the Concessionaire; V – non fulfillment of the requirements of the coverages by insurance plans as an affront to the obligations foreseen in clause 24.1 and such omission cannot, at Anatel’s criterion, be supplied with the intervention; VI – when, in the terms of article 114, item IV, of Law No. 9,472 of 1997, there occurs any of the hypotheses foreseen in clause 28.1 and, at Anatel’s criterion, the intervention is considered to be inconvenient, hindering or even unfairly beneficial to the Concessionaire, and VII – non fulfillment of the universalization goals contained in the PGMU approved by Decree No. 2592 of May 15, 1998. Paragraph 1st. The intervention will be considered uncalled for when the demand for the service object of the concession can be met, against permission, by other providers in a regular and immediate way.

Clause 27. 4. The present Contract may have its caducity declared by act of the Director Council of Anatel, preceded of an administrative law suit that assures full right of defense to the Concessionaire, in the hypotheses of: I – transfer of partnership control, merger, separation, transformation of the Concessionaire or even incorporation or reduction in its capital stock without the previous approval of Anatel; II – irregular transfer of the Contract; III – non fulfillment of the transfer commitment referred to in clause 19.1 and in article 87 of Law No. 9,472 of 1997; IV – bankruptcy or dissolution of the Concessionaire; V – non fulfillment of the requirements of the coverages by insurance plans as an affront to the obligations foreseen in clause 24.1 and such omission cannot, at Anatel’s criterion, be supplied with the intervention; VI – when, in the terms of article 114, item IV, of Law No. 9,472 of 1997, there occurs any of the hypotheses foreseen in clause 28.1 and, at Anatel’s criterion, the intervention is considered to be inconvenient, hindering or even unfairly beneficial to the Concessionaire, and VII – non fulfillment of the universalization goals contained in the PGMU approved by Decree No. 2592 of May 15, 1998. Paragraph 1st. The intervention will be considered uncalled for when the demand for the service object of the concession can be met, against permission, by other providers in a regular and immediate way.