Publications

Category: Infrastructure and energy

The National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) has been publishing resolutions with the objective of adapting the health sector to the changes resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. Only in the month of March resolutions by the Board of Directors (RDCs) under numbers 348, 349, 350, and 356, were published in the Official Federal Gazette (DOU), all valid for 180 days. They provide for extraordinary and temporary measures concerning medicines, sanitizers, equipment, and medical devices.

RDC No. 348, of March 17, establishes extraordinary and temporary criteria and procedures for the treatment of applications for registration of drugs, biological products, and products for in vitro diagnosis, and post-registration changes for drugs and biological products. Through RDC 348, priority access to the registration of these products is possible, especially those for in vitro diagnosis. The purpose is not to assess and approve products automatically, but to provide dexterity to the regulatory agency's application review process.

RDC No. 349, of March 19, aims at regulating the criteria and procedures related to application for regularization of personal protective equipment, pulmonary ventilator-type medical equipment, and other devices recognized as strategic by Anvisa at this time. The measure speeds up the procedures for approval of medical equipment, such as substitution of the presentation of the Good Manufacturing Practices Certification by the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) or Quality Management System Certification ISO 13485, among other simplified processes.

RDC No. 350, of March 19, determines the criteria and procedures for the manufacture and sale of antiseptic or sanitizing preparations, exceptionally without prior authorization from Anvisa. Provided that the technical quality criteria established in other Anvisa resolutions are followed, companies regularized may manufacture and sell products such as 70% ethyl alcohol, 80% glycerin ethyl alcohol, 75% glycerin isopropyl alcohol, and 0.5% chlorhexidine diglyconate.

The companies regularized must have an Operating Permit (AFE) issued by Anvisa and a health license or permit issued by the competent health agency from the states, Federal District, and municipalities, as well as other operating permits, including for manufacturing and storing flammable substances.

RDC No. 350 also establishes that companies manufacturing cosmetics and sanitizers can manufacture and sell 70% alcohol in its various forms of presentation. On the other hand, companies that manufacture drugs, sanitizers, or cosmetics may receive donations of raw materials used in the manufacture of antiseptic or sanitizing preparations, provided they meet the technical requirements of quality and safety defined by the manufacturer of the finished product.

Finally, RDC No. 356, of March 23, sets forth the requirements for the manufacture, import, and purchase of medical devices identified as priorities for use in health services. To facilitate the supply of such products in the domestic market, the resolution also waives the need for an AFE and other health regulatory authorizations for the manufacture and import of the following products for use in health services: surgical masks, N95, PFF2, or equivalent particulate respirators, goggles, facial protectors, disposable hospital clothing (waterproof and non-waterproof aprons/caps), caps and head coverings, valves, circuits, and respiratory connections.

The strategic actions adopted by Anvisa seek to mitigate the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, making access possible and increasing the volume of regularized products that can be used to tackle the pandemic. As mentioned before, such measures are extraordinary and temporary, since the resolutions are valid for 180 days.

Category: Banking, insurance and finance

The National Department of Business Registration and Integration (DREI), of the Ministry of Economy, published on April 15 Normative Instruction No. 79 regarding participation in and remote voting at meetings and assemblies of privately-held corporations, limited liability companies, and cooperatives, in response to the crisis caused by covid-19.

IN No. 79 regulates the holding of meetings and assemblies by digital means - when shareholders, partners, or associates can only participate and vote at a distance (in which case they will not take place in any physical location), or even in a semi-in-person manner - in which participation and voting are allowed in person, at the physical location of the meeting, and also at a distance. Meetings held fully in-person are not subject to this rule.

Participation and remote voting may take place by sending a ballot paper remotely and/or through an electronic system accessible to all partners, shareholders, or associates, which guarantees, among other requirements, the security, reliability, and transparency of the meeting, as well as registration of the presence of the partners, shareholders, or associates.

The call notice shall state, prominently, that the meeting or assembly shall be semi-in-person or digital, as the case may be, detailing how shareholders, partners, or members may participate and vote remotely, and listing the documents required for them, or their representatives, to be admitted.

Related documents must be made available in advance by secure digital means, observing the disclosure mechanisms provided for by law for each type of company. They can also be presented in summary form in the call notice, indicating the website where the complete information will be available.

The ballot paper, in turn, shall be made available by the company in a version for printing and completion by hand, containing: all matters on the agenda; guidelines on how to send it back to the company; indication of the documents that must accompany it in order to verify the identity of the shareholder, partner, associate, or any representative; and guidelines on the formalities required for the vote to be considered valid. The ballot must be sent by the company/company/cooperative on the same date as publication of the call notice and returned at least five days before the meeting. The document may even be rectified and sent back, provided that the deadline is respected. This submission does not prevent the partner or associate from participating and voting at the meeting, in which case the document sent shall be disregarded.

The company may hire third parties to manage, on its behalf, the processing of information at meetings or assemblies, but it will be responsible for filing the documents associated with the event and recording it in its entirety, keeping these records for the period in which it is possible to request annulment.

In the specific case of cooperatives, the electronic system adopted shall ensure the anonymous nature of the vote on those matters where the bylaws provide for secret voting.

The minutes of the assemblies or meetings shall indicate the model adopted and the manner in which participation and remote voting were permitted. The chairman and secretary shall sign it and consolidate the attendance list in a single document. The same signature and attendance certification procedure may be used for the respective corporate books. In the case of digital minutes, the signatures of the chairman and secretary shall be made by means of a digital certificate issued by an entity accredited by ICP-Brasil or any other means of proving the authorship and integrity of documents in electronic form. Means shall be provided for the minutes to be printed on paper, legibly and at any time by any partners. The chairman or secretary shall expressly declare that all the requirements for holding the meeting have been met, especially those set forth in IN No. 79.

In-person meetings or assemblies already called and not yet held due to restrictions resulting from the covid-19 pandemic may take place semi-in-person or digitally, provided that all shareholders, partners, or associates are present or expressly declare their agreement to such procedure.

Category: Litigation

The need to resolve conflicts arising from the economic impacts of the covid-19 pandemic declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) and government measures adopted to contain the spread of the virus will demand, as it has been demanding, a response from the Brazilian judiciary.

On the one hand, the situation challenges the conventional framework aimed at dispute resolution and its modus operandi, which is considerably in person. On the other hand, it creates the opportunity to develop methods of resolution which, although not culturally valued in Brazil, can avoid overloading the courts and allow a faster and more effective response to disputes.

One example is the initiative of the São Paulo Court of Appeals (TJ-SP) to create a pilot project for pre-trial conciliation and mediation for business disputes arising from the effects of the pandemic (CG Resolution No. 11/2020, of April 17).

The resolution presents an alternative to the traditional way of filing an action, the solution of which could take some years to arrive. This time would be incompatible with the urgency of the present moment and the impossibility of conducting activities in the conventional manner, which would require the physical presence of the parties involved.

Thus, TJ-SP presents an option that is unusual in Brazil, but very successful in various other countries, which the court itself describes in the resolution as a “pre-trial means of settlement, in a manner complementary to the existing ones ('multiport' system), adapted to the specific profile of the business demands and of fully remote operation."

Before explaining the procedure itself, it is important to point out that it does not apply to all, nor to any kind of dispute. Only businessmen, business companies, and "other economic agents" may appear as plaintiffs (although the court has not yet defined the scope of this term).

The dispute must be (i) about legal deals related to the production and circulation of goods and services; and (ii) the claim and cause of action must be related to the consequences of the covid-19 pandemic, i.e. the final claim and the facts and grounds for that claim must derive from a situation caused by the pandemic.

In procedural terms, in particular determining the parties involved and suitability vis-à-vis the terms of the resolution, the interested party must submit an application by e-mail, containing the claim and the cause of action in the terms already mentioned. Although there is no express provision in the resolution as to the obligation to be represented by attorneys, given that their presence is mandatory in judicial mediations (Law No. 13,140/15), it seems reasonable to us to say that the resolution followed the law as to this obligation.

Upon receipt of the claim, a digital conciliation hearing shall be scheduled, via a system made available by the court, within a maximum of seven days. The conciliation will be presided over by a judge of law participating in the pilot project. At this point, the limited time for the hearing and the innovative role of the judges in the pre-trial phase stand out.

If conciliation is unsuccessful, the proceeding shall be referred to a mediator, chosen by the parties or, if there is no consensus, appointed by the judge, for mediation to proceed under the procedural terms of Law No. 13,140/15.

If a consensus is reached between the parties, either through the conciliation hearing or the mediation session, the settlement shall be approved by the presiding judge and made available to the parties within three days of the hearing. In cases where there is no consensus, the parties are may file the respective legal actions.

The TJ-SP’s initiative with the pilot project, anchored in the existing legal mechanisms, highlights the gradual recognition of the institute of mediation as an important alternative method of dispute resolution. Other states have prepared interesting proposals to this effect, such as the creation, by the Paraná State Court of Appeals, of roundtable discussion Judicial Centers for Dispute Resolution (Cejusc) to act in the conciliation and mediation of land disputes, debts of residential mortgage debtors, and judicial reorganization of companies.

The crisis caused by the pandemic represents an opportunity for the development of the institute of mediation in Brazil as a rapid alternative to mitigate its economic impacts, allowing a faster and more stable resumption of business activities under dispute.

Category: Litigation

Various articles and news pieces have appeared in the specialized media in relation to Bill No. 1,397/20, which contemplates emergency measures to deal with the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, including amendments to Law No. 11,101/05 (Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Law - LFR). The debate became more relevant on April 15, when the bill received an urgent request, according to article 155 of the Internal Rules of the Chamber of Deputies. This urgency is assigned to issues that aim, among other things, to address public calamities (article 153 of the internal rules).

Bill 1,397/20 allows successive periods of suspension of the exercise of creditors' rights provided for by law and by contract. Despite the pressing need for measures to remedy (or prevent, to use the term adopted by the bill) the crisis, the provisions in question deserve consideration, given the legal uncertainty that abuses in measures such as these may generate.

The first measure aims to create a general and legal stay period of 60 days, from the effective date of the law, for all companies and all businessmen. During this period, creditors of any and all economic players may not judicially collect on the obligations against the defaulting debtor after March 20, 2020, except for any guarantees that may have been given or unilaterally terminate contracts, even if based on a contractual or legal provision.

The idea may seem positive at first, but it does not take into account that many economic players and companies, without great economic justification and without regard for the counterpart, can stop any type of payment to their creditors knowing that, for two months, they will be immune to judicial measures provided for in the legal system and in contracts. In other words, the measure may stimulate situations where parties to contracts, instead of acting with the cooperation and good faith expected, adopt selfish measures, provisionally supported by law, generating a domino effect of defaults. More than that, this cascading effect may favor those who should already be out of the market, given a situation of prior insolvency, or parties that are opportunistic and unconcerned with the counterparty.

Under the terms of Bill 1,397/20, after the stay period, the same opportunistic and/or insolvent economic players may submit claims in the Judiciary to initiate the voluntary judicial procedure known as preventive negotiation, on the allegation that they are going through an economic and financial crisis, with a reduction in revenues equal to or greater than 30% of the average for the last quarter. This procedure will have a new 60-day, non-extendable stay period (under the terms of the bill), during which creditors will also not be able to exercise their contractual and legal rights, nor will they be able to present arguments on the appropriateness and merits of the claim for collective negotiation itself.

This second measure, like the first, in addition to fighting the financial economic crisis felt in Brazil, aims to bypass potential bottlenecks in the judiciary caused by an exponential increase in the number of claims. Although such concerns are commendable, it is certain that Bill 1,397/20 runs counter to the logic of assigning a power to creditors, provided in the Brazilian bankruptcy system, without also assigning due and proportional consideration to debtors. Thus, it can be affirmed that Bill 1,397/20 does not correctly address the prohibition with the abuse of rights in the adoption of the voluntary procedure, nor does it open the opportunity for creditors to exercise their adversarial rights in a broad manner. Therefore, the stage is once again set for the use of potentially dilatory and abusive measures by those who were already in a situation of insolvency before the pandemic, postponing the fated bankruptcy and bringing, once again, legal insecurity, which should always be avoided.

Although it is merely a possibility for creditors to submit their claims to collective negotiation, it should be taken into account that this procedure entails the impossibility of unilaterally terminating the contract in any situation, which hollows out the power of choice and even takes away any advantage in negotiation.

Moreover, in practice, small economic players (over 90% of the market) would find it difficult to hire specialized advisors or professional mediators to engage in appropriate and professional dialogue with creditors. The larger players, on the other hand, are already the ones who most benefit from the existing mechanisms, mainly in the LRF. In other words, it is valid to question the real effectiveness of the measures provided for in Bill 1,397/20 and for whom they are actually intended.

In any case, if the result of the collective negotiation is not the result sought by the debtor, companies (and not any economic player) may resort to the bankruptcy proceedings provided for in the LFR, the requirements of which will be relaxed during the pandemic pursuant to Bill 1,397/2020, in order to facilitate the use thereof.

In order to do justice, the advantage for the debtor, under the terms of the bill, is that, in the case of judicial reorganization proceedings, a 180-day stay period if granted, from which, if applicable, the 60-day period for collective negotiation must be deducted. However, the 180-day stay period provided for in the LFR, although it cannot be extended by provision of law, has been extended by the Brazilian courts whenever the debtor in possession is able to prove that, for reasons beyond its control, it was unable to hold a general meeting of creditors to resolve on the judicial reorganization plan it offered. It is hoped that this case law understanding will not prevail in the scenario dealt with here.

Specifically with regard to out-of-court reorganization, Bill 1,397/20 seeks to amend the LFR to expressly provide for the possibility of granting the stay period, which had already been permitted by the case law. In the draft presented to the Chamber of Deputies, the bill is not very clear about what that period would be. It is believed to be 180 days.[1]

Still in relation to judicial and extrajudicial reorganization proceedings in progress, another type of stay period was created, in which the obligations assumed in the plans approved will not be due for 120 days. During this period the possibility of conversion of the reorganization into bankruptcy due to noncompliance with the obligation established in the plan is suspended. In addition, debtors will be able to submit a new plan including claims which are subsequent to the assignment of the reorganization claim (normally excluded from these cases). The bill also stipulates that debtors will be entitled to a new stay period, under the LFR, in order to allow discussion with creditors and, perhaps, a vote on the plan at a general meeting of creditors.

This point in the Bill 1,397/20 is perhaps the most critical, since another 300 days of stay can be given, without any concern for effective compliance with the plan and without giving creditors the immediate right to decide whether to revise it or resort to bankruptcy in a timely manner. Worse still, a review of the text of the bill shows that creditors who have done business with the company under judicial reorganization and who would have priority treatment, provided for in article 67 of the LFR, may have their claims submitted to a new reorganization plan in a case, which, in principle, was not applicable to them. This is definitely a further risk to legal certainty, which generally scares off new investments and, in this sense, may compromise the effectiveness of legal instruments capable of preventing and remedying bankruptcy.

Finally, and far from this article having the pretension of exhausting the subject, the reality is only as follows: businesses will be deeply impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and, for better or worse, the market must absorb this blow in some way. The bill seems to have chosen to place much of this responsibility on the shoulders of creditors. Based on the points raised in this text, however, creditors may prepare themselves to make the business decisions most appropriate to the current reality in their negotiations by resorting to creative legal solutions, based on extensive information on the subject and the extent of the measures proposed.

[1] In fact, article 6 referred to in paragraph 2 of article 10 of Bill 1,397/20 does not provide for any time limit. This leads to the belief that this paragraph would actually be referring to article 6 of the LFR and, therefore, to the time limit of 180 days.

Category: Labor and employment

With the revocation of Executive Order No. 905/2019 by Executive Order No. 955, published on April 20, the changes and innovations it promoted, such as the institution of the Green and Yellow Employment Contract, were lost. According to a statement by President Jair Bolsonaro himself on the social media, the revocation was due to the imminent expiry of Executive Order No. 905/2019. Companies that had already made adjustments in their practices, procedures, and policies based on Executive Order No. 905 should adapt them.

In any case, the president advanced that he will issue a new executive order to deal specifically with the Green and Yellow Employment Contract to encourage job creation.

The original text of Executive Order No. 905, published on November 12, 2019, had implemented various changes and innovations in social security, labor, and tax laws and regulations, among which we highlight (more details here):

• The possibility of hiring employees through the Green and Yellow Employment Contract, with a significant reduction in the charges levied on the remuneration of these individuals, stimulating the generation of employment and income.

• Changes in the rules on Profit Sharing (PLR), bringing about greater clarity regarding existing provisions in the law and modifying points of its application, including waiving some formalities, such as participation of the labor union in negotiations through an employee commission.

• Changes in the rules for granting food vouchers to expressly clarify that the provision of food to employees, whether in natura or through vouchers, coupons, checks, electronic cards intended for the purchase of meals or food, is not of the nature of salary and that no social security contributions, FGTS, and IRRF is levied on it

• Changes to bonus payment rules to resolve the controversy over the "liberality" requirement created by Cosit Solution of Consultation No. 151/19. However, the changes restricted the frequency payment of bonuses to four times in the same calendar year and once in the same quarter.

• Changes in the rules regarding work on Sundays and public holidays and paid weekly rest to allow work on Sundays and public holidays, in short, authorizing only the right to weekly rest of 24 hours, preferably on Sundays. With the changes, it was also provided that enjoyment of the weekly paid break schedule on Sundays must be (i) one Sunday every for four weeks of work for the retail and services sector; and (ii) one Sunday every seven work weeks for industry.

• Changes in the work hours of bank employees that increased them from six to eight hours per day, except for bank employees working as cashiers.

• Changes in the index for adjustment for inflation and in the interest applicable to labor debts, which would be based, respectively, on the IPCA-E (and not on the TR) and on the interest applicable to savings accounts (instead of 1% per month).

• Changes related to stop work and shutdown orders, in order to adjust outdated names, change the deadline for filing appeals such orders, and revoke (i) article 160 of the Consolidated Labor Laws, which required new establishments to undergo an inspection and approval of their facilities by the competent regional occupational safety and medicine authority before commencing their activities; and (ii) the obligation for companies to notify the Regional Labor Office in advance of substantial changes in facilities for a new inspection.

• Changes in the rules regarding inspection by labor inspectors and the imposition of administrative fines related to labor laws and regulations, especially related to the criteria for the application of double visits and the application of administrative fines according to the nature of the offense (light, medium, severe, or very severe).

We will continue to monitor the evolution of this topic and any developments.

Category: Infrastructure and energy

Among so many areas of law already deeply affected by the crisis, it seems that it is now the regulating of public finances, that is, finance law, that is subject to the most intense transformations. This is because in Brazil, as in the rest of the world, the public budget is called to turn the mill of anti-cyclical policies against the impetuous stream of successive falls in tax revenues, typical of a shaken world economy in which, moreover, for the first time in history, the price of oil has fallen to a negative number.

In view of this framework, the legal regime aimed at fighting the pandemic, initiated by Legislative Decree No. 6 of March 20, 2020, the declaration of public calamity for the purpose of compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF), comes into force. It was the first time Brazil made use of the provisions of article 65 of that law. With the declaration, the government is exempted from achieving the fiscal results established and from complying with the performance limitations provided for in the LRF, and may, until the end of the year, allocate resources to combat the coronavirus more easily.

The public fiscal calamity decree was followed by an injunction issued by STF Justice Alexandre de Moraes under ADI No. 6357-DF, which exceptionally ruled out the application of articles 14, 16, 17, and 24 of the LRF and 114, head paragraph, and paragraph 14, of the Budget Guidelines Law of 2020 (LDO 2020). With the injunction, the requirement of estimates of budgetary and financial impact and compatibility with the LDO is waived. The requirement to demonstrate the origin of resources and to weigh the financial effects of the increase on indirect tax expenses and continuing compulsory expenses is also eliminated.

In the context of the formation of this financial right of exception, there is also some reticence on the part of the Federal Audit Court (TCU) in relation to the Continuous Payment Benefit (BPC), paid to the elderly and low income people. On March 13, Justice Bruno Dantas had ordered via injunctive relief that expansion of the BPC be suspended, established by Congress a few days earlier. In his order, the Justice pointed out the need to link the increase of an obligatory expense to the respective source of funds (by increasing taxes or reallocating other expenses). However, on March 18, the TCU en banc revoked the measure, with Justice Bruno Dantas himself recognizing that "the framework of emergency and unpredictability presented after the coronavirus crisis could give rise to some kind of relaxation of the parameters of the LRF.” Thus, to better examine the issue, the TCU requested detailed information from the Executive, reinforcing that the court will continue to exercise its role of monitoring the expenditures announced in order to combat the effects of the pandemic.

Even with all the relaxation in the requirements of the ordinary arrangements of the Brazilian finance law, some obstacles to the administration of tax policy continued to be insurmountable, such as (i) those provided in article 164 and (ii) the provisions of article 167, III, both of the Federal Constitution. The head paragraph of article 164 ensures the exclusivity of the Central Bank of Brazil (Bacen) for the issuance of currency in the Brazilian territory, with the first paragraph preventing the entity from carrying out credit operations with the National Treasury (TN), even though the second paragraph enables the acquisition and sale of securities issued by the TN for the regulation of market liquidity level and interest rate calibration. In addition, article 167, III, crystallizes the so-called "golden rule", which prohibits the carrying out of credit operations in excess of the capital expenditure expected, i.e., the use of resources derived from public debt for the payment of current expenditures, although such an impediment may be waived, even in normal times, by means of supplementary, special, or extraordinary credits, which are dealt with in article 167, III, and third paragraph.

To eliminate the last of the walls of the bull’s pin containing the Brazilian public debt, the proposal by the chairman of the Chamber of Deputies, Rodrigo Maia, stands out: PEC 10/2020. It seeks to insert provisions into the Transitory Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) that institute an "extraordinary fiscal, financial, and procurement arrangement to address the national public calamity resulting from the international pandemic. Known as the "War Budget PEC", the proposal, among other provisions, aims to create a parallel budget piece, running during the current state of calamity. Under the proposal, the government is authorized, for example, to violate the "golden rule" to use resources (obtained from the issuance of securities) originally earmarked for rolling over public debt (refinancing of principal) to pay its interest and charges.

The War Budget PEC also allows Brazil to perform what has already been established by foreign monetary authorities, namely quantitative easing. It is an instrument that allows a central bank to expand the money supply in the economy beyond the limits known by traditional monetary policy. With quantitative easing (provided for by PEC 10/2020), Bacen is authorized to buy and sell, directly in the secondary markets, credit rights and private securities with a risk classification equal to or greater than BB-. This will allow, for example, the authority to acquire: (i) non-convertible debentures; (ii) real estate credit notes; (iii) real estate receivables certificates; (iv) agribusiness receivables certificates; (v) commercial paper; and (vi) bank credit notes. The objective is to ensure greater liquidity for these institutions and increase the supply of credit in the markets.

Such operations, of course, are not risk-free. Although the US Fed has already reported hundreds of billions of dollars in profits derived from the securities acquired during the quantitative easing that followed the 2008 crisis (due both to the income from the securities and increase in their market value), Bacen is now exposed to risk of default and devaluation in the securities that will be part of its portfolio.

In order to avoid some of the risks arising from the War Budget PEC, the Senate, after the approval by the Chamber of Deputies, promoted some changes in the text of the proposal, prohibiting, for example, (i) acquisition of securities directly from non-financial companies, without the brokerage of banks; or (ii) financial institutions involved in the sale of securities to Bacen, for example, from increasing the remuneration and bonuses of their executives, and also preventing them from paying dividends above the mandatory minimum established by law. The prohibition mirrors the provisions of the recent National Monetary Council (CMN) Resolution No. 4,797/20, which, in the use of its economic regulatory capacity, and seeking "to avoid the consumption of important resources for the maintenance of credit and for any absorption of losses," establishes prudential transitory requirements for the Brazilian financial system, preventing authorized financial institutions from: (i) paying interest on equity and dividends above the mandatory minimum; (ii) carrying out share buyback operations; (iii) reducing capital stock; (iv) increasing the remuneration of their executives; and (v) accelerating any of these payments. With the changes to the PEC 10/2020 promoted by the Senate, the text now returns to the Chamber of Deputies.

This metamorphosis of Brazilian finance law highlights its peculiarity in relation to other legal disciplines; it lies at a point of intersection between structural stability and the imperatives that emerge from specific conjunctures. The rigidity typically expected from other fields of law, which is necessary to ensure legal security and predictability for conducting business, is opposed to the fluidity of the public finance system, which must provide the instruments necessary for acting in cyclical situations.

The institutional openness to the vertiginous expansion of the use of public credit is neither good nor bad in isolation, since it is not an end in itself. Public debt can be a real blessing, as pioneered by the American founding father Alexander Hamilton, or a sword of Damocles. It will all depend on the quality of the interventions that will be financed by it.