For such a case, whatever the causes that have determined the impossibility of obtaining the notarial act or that the obtained one cannot be classified as such, regardless of the responsibility that the Administrators may have incurred, the agreements are not registrable. Now, that registration closure in favor of a certain documentation of the agreements has a limited time period, which is that of the annotation; and this must be canceled, either when the intervention of a Notary Public in the Meeting is duly accredited, without further ado, or when it has expired, which takes place three months after its date. After this period, the resolutions adopted by means of an ordinary act that meet the regulatory requirements can be registered.

General Meeting: preventive annotation of a challenge claim.- The existence of a preventive annotation of a challenge claim to the merger agreement, on the sheet of the absorbed company, is not an obstacle to registering said resolution, since it is not a resolution that has suspended the contested agreements; Said annotation is a precautionary measure that guarantees the effectiveness of the sentence that was issued in its day, enervating the presence of the legitimizing game of registry advertising, but that does not need a registry closure to take place for its effectiveness.

General Meeting: preventive annotation of a challenge claim.- The purpose of the annotation of a claim to challenge corporate resolutions, existing in the Registry, is to guarantee the effectiveness of the ruling that was issued in due course, undermining the legitimizing game of advertising registry, but it does not produce the closure of the Registry, which could paralyze the life of the company. This resolution is limited to the foregoing by the only defect indicated in the qualification note, it does not pronounce on whether the annotation, in addition, was a final judicial resolution of suspension of the contested agreements and caused the closure of the Registry, because these points appeared only in the Registrar’s report.

Raising the problem, in a mortgage deed, of the setting of two addresses for requirements, one of the debtor and the other of the mortgagee, the Management understands that the expression “one address”, which uses article 130 of the Mortgage Law, does not seem that has the meaning of a single address, but the word “one” may be an indeterminate article, apart from the fact that the setting of different addresses for the mortgager and the debtor may facilitate the development of the procedure. On the other hand, it is necessary that, being agreed in the extrajudicial executive procedure, the domicile has to be the same as the one agreed for the summary judicial and, although in this the Law speaks that the debtor will fix the domicile, in that The Regulation says that the mortgagee will do so, given this doubt that the legislation raises, it is not a defect, but rather prudence, to fix the domicile of both.