Gilmar Mendes has asked the Supreme Federal Court’s Second Panel to decide whether a major dispute over compensation for sugar and ethanol mills should be sent to the full 11-member court. The immediate case involves Raízen and turns on whether each mill must provide an individual expert assessment of losses attributed to government price controls in the 1980s and 1990s.¹

Coverage from the right emphasizes the procedural and fiscal case for moving the matter. Mendes says the full court should standardize application of Theme 826, a precedent under which compensation depends on proof of a concrete loss. The panel must first approve the procedural request during a virtual session scheduled from September 25 to October 2.² Supporters of that approach point to the potential public cost: official estimates put the combined claims at as much as R$145 billion.³

Mendes has also argued that his voting record conflicts with the position taken by Banco Master’s former controller, Daniel Vorcaro. “Without expert evidence identifying the concrete loss suffered by the mill, these credits are undue,” he said, noting that he had opposed payments in several cases.³

Left-leaning coverage, however, places the procedural move in the context of fresh reporting on Master’s interests in the claims. It notes that the bank acquired precatory credits linked to mill litigation and that Vorcaro met Mendes at the court in April 2024 to present arguments on the issue. Mendes said the meeting was institutional and later voted against the position Vorcaro supported.⁴

That coverage also highlights reports of a potential fee arrangement involving lawyer Camilla Ramos in 12 cases connected to the sector, while noting that Justice Kassio Nunes Marques has denied acting to benefit Vorcaro or Banco Master.⁵ Both accounts therefore converge on the need for a definitive legal answer, but differ over whether the central story is judicial consistency or the heightened scrutiny surrounding the litigation’s financial stakeholders.