Company: SUZ
Filing Date: 2025-04-28
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001628280-25-020368
Chunk: 138

Company: Suzano S.A.
Filing Date: 2025-04-28
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 8
Chunk 138
---
 for the impacts of our operation and (ii) the second, alleges the negative impacts of the operation in the Lower Parnaíba Region, at the State Maranhão, by Suzano, futhermore, the Federal Public Prosecution Office claims that the occupation of these areas has caused socio-environmental impacts in the eastern Maranhão region. The risks involved in such proceedings include delays in our plantation schedule and the suspension of the activities carried out in our Maranhão unit until a new permit is issued and the impacts are repaired. With regards to the first class action the superior court is still to rule on an appeal against the injunction granted against us, and to the second claim is still pending judgement by the trial judge, as this case is still currently in the investigative phase, with expert procedures underway.

In December 2020, the Prosecutor's Office of the State of Bahia initiated a public civil action against us, questioning the applicability of the concept of "Consolidated Rural Areas," established by Federal Law No. 12,651/2012, in areas within the Mata Atlântica Biome. The case is still in its initial stages, and a preliminary injunction was granted by the State Of Bahia Court Of Appeals (Tribunal de Justiça da Bahia) permitting the regular operation of our areas, while the merit discussion over the recognition of the Regulatory Decree for the Atlantic Forest biome as still pending. The Court requested in-depth technical studies from the Bahia Environmental Institute (INEMA) to identify possible Consolidated Rural Areas in the region. This decision is subject to appeal by both us and INEMA.

The municipality of Nova Viçosa, located in the state of Bahia, filed a Public Civil Action against us, claiming collective damages due to alleged consequences of our dredging operations in a navigation channel in the Municipality of Caravelas, operated by us until 2021. Although these operations were conducted in accordance with environmental permits issued by INEMA and the Brazilian Federal Environmental Agency (IBAMA), the municipality alleges that the dredging caused impacts on fishing and aesthetic elements.

Table of Co ntents

The motion by the municipality was mostly denied due to the lack of legal and factual requirements for an injunction, except for a partial grant obliging us to hire an audit to attest to the robustness of our corporate governance. We appealed to the State Court, which ruled against us in a decision that was contradictory and unclear. We filed a motion for clarification to reverse the decision