Background
Lucia Cristina Pinatti Brun sued PREVI and its sponsor, Banco do Brasil, seeking revision of her closed supplementary-pension benefits to reflect overtime and related compensation recognized in labor proceedings. She also sought preservation of her contribution salary during periods of reduced remuneration, recalculation of the Temporary Special Benefit (BET), retroactive differences, and funding of the actuarial reserve needed for the revised benefit.
The trial court dismissed Banco do Brasil for lack of standing and partially granted relief against PREVI, ordering recalculation of the principal benefit while requiring prior funding of the associated costs. The Federal District and Territories Court of Justice maintained Banco do Brasil’s dismissal, upheld revision of the principal benefit, and made that revision conditional on prior and complete restoration of the actuarial reserve. Brun filed a special appeal, while PREVI filed an interlocutory appeal after its own special appeal was denied admission.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court of Justice unanimously declined to hear PREVI’s interlocutory appeal because PREVI had not specifically challenged every independent ground supporting the denial of its special appeal, as required by Article 932(III) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court also held that Brun’s generic allegation that the lower court had failed to adjudicate issues adequately was insufficiently developed.
The Court partially heard and granted Brun’s special appeal. It held that Banco do Brasil had standing because Brun sought to make the sponsor fund the employer’s share of the actuarial reserve required for revision of the pension benefit after its underpayment of contributions associated with the overtime award. Under Article 6 of Complementary Law No. 108/2001, however, funding is shared: Banco do Brasil must pay the sponsor’s share, and Brun must pay the participant’s share, with the amounts determined through an actuarial study during the liquidation phase and credit given for sums already paid following the labor judgment.
The Court did not disturb the denial of BET recalculation because doing so would require reexamining evidence and plan provisions, which is barred in a special appeal by STJ Precedents 5 and 7. It reinstated Banco do Brasil as a defendant, required it to fund the sponsor’s share of the actuarial reserve, and adjusted the allocation of attorneys’ fees accordingly.
Key Takeaways
- A closed pension-plan sponsor has standing when the claim seeks payment of its share of the actuarial reserve required to revise a participant’s benefit following the sponsor’s alleged employment-related wrongdoing.
- Restoring the actuarial reserve is a shared obligation: the sponsor and the participant or beneficiary must each fund their respective contribution shares.
- An interlocutory appeal challenging denial of a special appeal must specifically address every ground for inadmissibility; generalized objections are insufficient.
- The STJ will not revisit a BET-recalculation claim when resolution would require reinterpretation of plan terms or reexamination of the evidentiary record.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes disputes confined to administration of a pension plan—where the sponsor ordinarily lacks standing—from claims seeking to hold the sponsor responsible for the actuarial consequences of its own alleged civil or employment-related wrongdoing. A sponsor may therefore be joined when the requested relief includes its contribution to restoring the reserve needed for benefit revision.
The ruling also confirms that sponsor responsibility does not shift the entire funding burden away from the beneficiary. Even when belatedly recognized employment compensation supports revision of a supplementary pension, actuarial balance requires both sides to supply their prescribed shares before the revised benefit becomes payable.