Company: CRESW
Filing Date: 2025-10-24
Form Type: 20-F
Source: 0001654954-25-012195
Chunk: 90

Company: CRESUD INC
Filing Date: 2025-10-24
Form: 20-F
Item: Item 3
Chunk 90
---
 and provided that the limitations mentioned above do not apply to: (i) the pledge of real estate as collateral (including the fiduciary transfer of real estate property); and (ii) debt settlements arising from the execution of real estate collateral. Both exceptions favor Brazilian companies controlled by foreigners or foreign entities. Both exceptions favor Brazilian companies controlled by foreigners or foreign entities.

In accordance with the applicable regulations in Brazil and taking into consideration that some investors apply resources in Brasilagro indirectly by the investment funds that hold some of its shares or by other means, Brasilagro cannot identify the percentage of share capital that is owned by final foreigners’ beneficiaries. If the authorities come to understand that Brasilagro should be considered a foreign company, for the purposes of Law No. 5,709/71, Brasilagro may be subject to eventual questions involving acquisitions and leasing carried out by the Company after the approval of Opinion AGU-LA-2010, and the possible application of Law No. 5,709/71 may result in substantial delays in future acquisitions of rural properties and our inability to obtain the necessary approvals. Additionally, acquisitions made in breach of existing restrictions may be declared null and void.

The applicability of Law No. 5,709/71 is being discussed in the Original Civil Action (ACO) No. 2,463 and in Action for Breach of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) No. 342, both in the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, or “STF”). The first action (ACO No. 2,463) concerns Opinion No. 461/2012-E of the São Paulo’s General Controller of Justice (Corregedoria Geral de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo), which established that Notaries and Real Estate Registry Officials of the State of São Paulo would be exempt to comply with the restrictions imposed from Lei No. 5, 709/71 and by Decree No. 74,965/74. The second action (ADPF No. 342), to which the first is attached, was proposed on April 16, 2015 by the Brazilian Rural Society questioning the applicability of paragraph 1, article 1, of Law No. 5,709/71 and consequently, of the opinion issued by the Attorney General's Office (AGU) in 2010.

A trial began before the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) in February 2021, with the vote of the rapporteur Justice stating