WP_Query Object
(
[query] => Array
(
[paged] => 8
[news-type] => blog-en
)
[query_vars] => Array
(
[paged] => 8
[news-type] => blog-en
[error] =>
[m] =>
[p] => 0
[post_parent] =>
[subpost] =>
[subpost_id] =>
[attachment] =>
[attachment_id] => 0
[name] =>
[pagename] =>
[page_id] => 0
[second] =>
[minute] =>
[hour] =>
[day] => 0
[monthnum] => 0
[year] => 0
[w] => 0
[category_name] =>
[tag] =>
[cat] =>
[tag_id] =>
[author] =>
[author_name] =>
[feed] =>
[tb] =>
[meta_key] =>
[meta_value] =>
[preview] =>
[s] =>
[sentence] =>
[title] =>
[fields] =>
[menu_order] =>
[embed] =>
[category__in] => Array
(
)
[category__not_in] => Array
(
)
[category__and] => Array
(
)
[post__in] => Array
(
)
[post__not_in] => Array
(
)
[post_name__in] => Array
(
)
[tag__in] => Array
(
)
[tag__not_in] => Array
(
)
[tag__and] => Array
(
)
[tag_slug__in] => Array
(
)
[tag_slug__and] => Array
(
)
[post_parent__in] => Array
(
)
[post_parent__not_in] => Array
(
)
[author__in] => Array
(
)
[author__not_in] => Array
(
)
[search_columns] => Array
(
)
[meta_query] => Array
(
)
[ignore_sticky_posts] =>
[suppress_filters] =>
[cache_results] => 1
[update_post_term_cache] => 1
[update_menu_item_cache] =>
[lazy_load_term_meta] => 1
[update_post_meta_cache] => 1
[post_type] =>
[posts_per_page] => 10
[nopaging] =>
[comments_per_page] => 50
[no_found_rows] =>
[taxonomy] => news-type
[term] => blog-en
[order] => DESC
)
[tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object
(
[queries] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[taxonomy] => news-type
[terms] => Array
(
[0] => blog-en
)
[field] => slug
[operator] => IN
[include_children] => 1
)
)
[relation] => AND
[table_aliases:protected] => Array
(
[0] => wp_term_relationships
)
[queried_terms] => Array
(
[news-type] => Array
(
[terms] => Array
(
[0] => blog-en
)
[field] => slug
)
)
[primary_table] => wp_posts
[primary_id_column] => ID
)
[meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object
(
[queries] => Array
(
)
[relation] =>
[meta_table] =>
[meta_id_column] =>
[primary_table] =>
[primary_id_column] =>
[table_aliases:protected] => Array
(
)
[clauses:protected] => Array
(
)
[has_or_relation:protected] =>
)
[date_query] =>
[queried_object] => WP_Term Object
(
[term_id] => 71
[name] => Blog
[slug] => blog-en
[term_group] => 0
[term_taxonomy_id] => 71
[taxonomy] => news-type
[description] =>
[parent] => 0
[count] => 74
[filter] => raw
)
[queried_object_id] => 71
[request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS wp_posts.ID
FROM wp_posts LEFT JOIN wp_term_relationships ON (wp_posts.ID = wp_term_relationships.object_id) LEFT JOIN wp_icl_translations wpml_translations
ON wp_posts.ID = wpml_translations.element_id
AND wpml_translations.element_type = CONCAT('post_', wp_posts.post_type)
WHERE 1=1 AND (
wp_term_relationships.term_taxonomy_id IN (71)
) AND ((wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (wp_posts.post_status = 'publish' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'acf-disabled' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-success' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-failed' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-schedule' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-pending' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'tribe-ea-draft'))) AND ( ( ( wpml_translations.language_code = 'en' OR (
wpml_translations.language_code = 'nl'
AND wp_posts.post_type IN ( 'attachment' )
AND ( (
( SELECT COUNT(element_id)
FROM wp_icl_translations
WHERE trid = wpml_translations.trid
AND language_code = 'en'
) = 0
) OR (
( SELECT COUNT(element_id)
FROM wp_icl_translations t2
JOIN wp_posts p ON p.id = t2.element_id
WHERE t2.trid = wpml_translations.trid
AND t2.language_code = 'en'
AND (
p.post_status = 'publish' OR p.post_status = 'private' OR
( p.post_type='attachment' AND p.post_status = 'inherit' )
)
) = 0 ) )
) ) AND wp_posts.post_type IN ('post','page','attachment','wp_block','wp_template','wp_template_part','wp_navigation','our_sector','our_rechtsgebieden','acf-field-group','bwl_advanced_faq','tribe_venue','tribe_organizer','tribe_events','mc4wp-form','slider-data','actualiteiten','accordion','failissementens','advocaten','blogs','seminar','juridisch-medewerker','backoffice','rechtsgebied-detail' ) ) OR wp_posts.post_type NOT IN ('post','page','attachment','wp_block','wp_template','wp_template_part','wp_navigation','our_sector','our_rechtsgebieden','acf-field-group','bwl_advanced_faq','tribe_venue','tribe_organizer','tribe_events','mc4wp-form','slider-data','actualiteiten','accordion','failissementens','advocaten','blogs','seminar','juridisch-medewerker','backoffice','rechtsgebied-detail' ) )
GROUP BY wp_posts.ID
ORDER BY wp_posts.menu_order, wp_posts.post_date DESC
LIMIT 70, 10
[posts] => Array
(
[0] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 7877
[post_author] => 26
[post_date] => 2012-11-05 00:00:00
[post_date_gmt] => 2012-11-05 00:00:00
[post_content] =>
Azzurro, a Swiss investment company, claims in an interim injunction procedure, that Impossible BV, a Dutch company pays outstanding invoices for the amount of € 49.096,42.
The court proceedings were started in The Netherlands because the Swiss company had a pre-judgment attachment placed on bankaccounts in The Netherlands of the Dutch company. Because of that a court proceeding had to be started.
The Dutch company stated that the Dutch court was not competent to judge in this matter because of the agreement between the parties. Parties had agreed upon the exclusive competence of the Swiss courts.
The Swiss company referred to article 31 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Swiss company stated that because of the attachment on goods in The Netherlands the Dutch court were competent.
The Dutch court had a different opinion. The court stated that the Dutch interim injunction procedure [kort geding] is a preliminary measure as mentioned in article 31 EEX regulation [ECJ 27 April 1999, NJ 2001, 90 Mietz/Intership Yachting Sneek].
The ECJ has set some rules for the application of article 31 EEX regulation: there has to be a direct link between the object of the requested measures and the competence of the court based on the territorial criteria [ECJ 17 November 1998, NJ 1999, 339 Van Uden/ Deco-Line].
According to this decision a debt collection interim injunction procedure [incasso kort geding] only meets these criteria when:
- It is guaranteed that the awarded amount will be repaid to the defendant when the plaintiff has been denied the claim in the procedure on the merits.
- The preliminary measures only involve certain goods that are within the territory of the other court.
The court decides that these criteria are not met because there is no guarantee offered.
Because of this the court in The Netherlands have no competence based on article 31 EEX Regulation.
The court decides that the claims have to be denied because the Dutch courts are not competent to judge in this case.
Court of Almelo, 18-10-2012, LJN: BY1528
Pre-judgment attachment [conservatoir beslag]
In The Netherlands it is often very effective to have a pre-judgment attachment [conservatoir beslag] placed on assets of the debtor.
Pre-judgment attachment is used to secure the payment of a claim. When the claim is rewarded by a judge the attachment is used to recover the claim.
All assets of the debtor are subject to [pre-judgment] attachment. In The Netherlands we have
several forms of pre-judgment attachment:
- for the collection of receivables [verhaalsbeslag];
- to attach specific goods for the purpose of surrender [beslag tot afgifte];
- to attach specific goods for the delivery of goods [beslag tot levering];
- to seize goods that are held by someone else than the debtor, e.g. a bank, [derdenbeslag];
- to seize the goods held by somebody else than your direct debtor [derdenbeslag];
- to seize goods [including electronic data] in order to preserve evidence proving the breach of intellectual property rights [bewijsbeslag].
A Dutch lawyer can ask a court to give permission to have an attachment placed on goods.
For more information: Jos van der Wijst
[post_title] => An attachment on goods in The Netherlands does not make Dutch courts competent
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => an-attachment-on-goods-in-the-netherlands-does-not-make-dutch-courts-competent
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2019-06-10 15:21:30
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-10 13:21:30
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => http://bgadvocaten.nl/en/2012/11/05/an-attachment-on-goods-in-the-netherlands-does-not-make-dutch-courts-competent/
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[1] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 15901
[post_author] => 26
[post_date] => 2012-10-30 00:00:00
[post_date_gmt] => 2012-10-30 00:00:00
[post_content] => U voert een discussie, heeft gelijk, maar stuit op weerstand aan de andere zijde. De wederpartij beweegt geen centimeter. Dus moet u zich tot de rechtbank wenden. Daarvoor moeten kosten worden gemaakt. Vooral wanneer het belang van de zaak relatief klein is, kunnen deze kosten verhoudingsgewijs erg oplopen. Wie betaalt deze kosten?
De kosten vallen in twee categorieën uiteen: proceskosten en buitengerechtelijke incassokosten. Proceskosten zijn noodzakelijke kosten voor het voeren van een procedure. Bijvoorbeeld kosten van de deurwaarder, het griffierecht en advocaatkosten voor de proceshandelingen. Buitengerechtelijke kosten zijn kosten die de adviseur, incassogemachtigde of advocaat maakt in verband met correspondentie, eventuele onderhandelingen, etc. Het gaat daarbij om werkzaamheden die niet direct verband houden met het voeren van de procedure, maar die juist zijn of worden verricht ter voorkoming van die procedure.
Betaalt de verliezer alle buitengerechtelijke kosten? Deze vraag moet meestal ontkennend worden beantwoord. De hoogte van de buitengerechtelijke kosten wordt volgens een vast schema vastgesteld. In de praktijk zijn de toegewezen kosten vaak lager dan de daadwerkelijk gemaakte kosten.
Voorheen werd de hoogte van de buitengerechtelijke incassokosten geregeld in Rapport Voorwerk II. Dit rapport is echter vervangen door een wet, de Wet Normering Vergoeding Buitengerechtelijke Kosten. De hoogte wordt op grond van deze wet berekend aan de hand van een percentage van de hoofdsom:
- 15% over de eerste € 2.500,-;
- 10% over de volgende € 2.500,-;
- 5% over de volgende € 5.000,-;
- 1% over de volgende € 190.000,-;
- 0,5% over het meerdere met een totaal maximum van € 6.775,-.
Voor consumenten is deze wet dwingendrechtelijk van aard. Dat betekent dat er niet van kan worden afgeweken door bijvoorbeeld algemene voorwaarden. Voor bedrijven onderling is deze wet van regelend recht. Dat betekent dat deze regels niet gelden, indien met een klant andere afspraken worden gemaakt.
Het is dus zinvol om in uw algemene voorwaarden, welke van toepassing [moeten] worden verklaard op de door u te sluiten overeenkomsten, afspraken te maken over de hoogte van de buitengerechtelijke incassokosten. Op die manier omzeilt u deze nieuwe wet in een geschil met een ander bedrijf.
In een procedure zal een rechter overigens nog wel een oordeel vellen over de redelijkheid van de afgesproken buitengerechtelijke incassokosten en toetsen of de werkzaamheden daadwerkelijk zijn verricht, alvorens de afgesproken kosten kunnen worden toegewezen.
Dirk School
[post_title] => Wie betaalt mijn proceskosten als ik in mijn recht sta?
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => wie-betaalt-mijn-proceskosten-als-ik-in-mijn-recht-sta
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2019-07-05 10:14:42
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-05 08:14:42
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://bg.legal/wie-betaalt-mijn-proceskosten-als-ik-in-mijn-recht-sta
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[2] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 7880
[post_author] => 26
[post_date] => 2012-07-31 00:00:00
[post_date_gmt] => 2012-07-31 00:00:00
[post_content] =>
Koninklijke Auping B.V. (hereinafter: Auping) is a bed manufacturer who sells its products at Auping stores and at specialized bed- and furniture stores. Auping wants to adopt a new distribution strategy in which the amount of Auping stores should increase at the expense of stores which sell various brands. Lubbers Wonen B.V. (hereinafter: Lubbers) is such a furniture store which sells products of various brands. Lubbers has also been selling Auping products for over twenty years. Auping wants to terminate the contract with Lubbers. According to Dutch law, the question whether an agreement for an indefinite period can be terminated, is determined by the contents of the agreement and the applicable provisions in the law. In this case, the agreement itself did not provide regulations in how to terminate the agreement. This leads to the conclusion that in principle the agreement is considered to be terminable. However, the Dutch requirements of reasonableness and fairness may cause that termination is only possible if a sufficient weighty reason for termination exists.
According to the Dutch Court, Lubbers has adequately established that she is to a considerable extent financially dependent on the agreement with Auping. Therefore, Auping had to come up with a weighty reason to justify the termination. The decision to adopt a new distribution strategy is based on quantitative requirements. The imposition of such requirements is allowed, provided that these requirements rely on objective criteria and are not characterized by randomness. Auping’s intention to realize more Auping stores is comprehensible, but the termination of the agreement with Lubbers is not necessary to make these stores profitable. Auping did not convince the Dutch Court the quantitative requirements to adopt a new strategy were objectively applied and therefore Auping failed to come up with a weighty reason to justify the termination.
Dutch Court Zwolle March 23rd, 2012,IEPT20120323.
[post_title] => Termination Distribution Auping agreement denied
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => termination-distribution-auping-agreement-denied
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2019-06-10 15:23:32
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-10 13:23:32
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => http://bgadvocaten.nl/en/2012/07/31/termination-distribution-auping-agreement-denied/
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[3] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 7884
[post_author] => 26
[post_date] => 2012-07-31 00:00:00
[post_date_gmt] => 2012-07-31 00:00:00
[post_content] =>
The Dutch companies DEPT and JC RAGS ordered the supply of jeans by the Portuguese company SICI 93 Braga. This company had the jeans manufactured in Brazil.
Due to earlier conflicts between the Dutch companies and the Brazilian manufacturer, the actual manufacturing of the jeans was delayed. Because of this the fatal date of delivery of the jeans was also delayed. The jeans were accepted by DEPT and JC RAGS and delivered to shops in order to be sold. But because of the late date of delivery DEPT and JC RAGS refused to pay for the delivered jeans. SICI had to go to a Dutch court to get DEPT and JC RAGS to have to pay the invoices. Parties discussed about the agreed date of delivery.
The court in ‘s-Hertogenbosch ruled that even when goods are delivered too late, the invoices have to be paid. Because SICI disputed that the goods were delivered too late, SICI got the opportunity to prove that such a delivery date was agreed, that the goods were not delivered too late. DEPT and JC RAGS claimed damages because of the late delivery and wanted to compensate their damages with the invoices. The court gave DEPT and JC RAGS the opportunity to prove their damages because of the late delivery.
The court heard witnesses. Then the court ruled that SICI had not succeeded in proving that a new date of delivery was agreed. SICI had agreed the new date with the agent of DEPT and JC RAGS but the agent had not communicated this new date with DEPT and JC RAGS.
The court also ruled that DEPT and JC RAGS had not succeeded in proving that they suffered damages because of the late delivery. DEPT and JC RAGS already agreed upon a later date of delivery than originally agreed. Because of this the customers of DEPT and JC RAGS already had damages and it was not proven that the claimed damages were the direct result of the delivery later than the date agreed with SICI.
Because of this the court ruled that DEPT and JC RAGS have to pay SICI the invoices, added with interest and legal fees.
Lessons to be learnt:
- Make sure all agreements on delivery dates are put on paper and confirmed by the customer.
- When goods are not delivered in time, in principal the invoices have to be paid unless damages resulting from the late delivery are proven.
For more information please contact:
Jos van der Wijst
Tel: +31 (0) 411 657521
Email: wijst@bg.legal
[post_title] => Dutch companies DEPT and JC RAGS have to pay Portuguese supplier of jeans
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => dutch-companies-dept-and-jc-rags-have-to-pay-portuguese-supplier-of-jeans
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2019-06-10 15:24:11
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-10 13:24:11
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => http://bgadvocaten.nl/en/2012/07/31/dutch-companies-dept-and-jc-rags-have-to-pay-portuguese-supplier-of-jeans/
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
)
[post_count] => 4
[current_post] => -1
[before_loop] => 1
[in_the_loop] =>
[post] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 7877
[post_author] => 26
[post_date] => 2012-11-05 00:00:00
[post_date_gmt] => 2012-11-05 00:00:00
[post_content] =>
Azzurro, a Swiss investment company, claims in an interim injunction procedure, that Impossible BV, a Dutch company pays outstanding invoices for the amount of € 49.096,42.
The court proceedings were started in The Netherlands because the Swiss company had a pre-judgment attachment placed on bankaccounts in The Netherlands of the Dutch company. Because of that a court proceeding had to be started.
The Dutch company stated that the Dutch court was not competent to judge in this matter because of the agreement between the parties. Parties had agreed upon the exclusive competence of the Swiss courts.
The Swiss company referred to article 31 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The Swiss company stated that because of the attachment on goods in The Netherlands the Dutch court were competent.
The Dutch court had a different opinion. The court stated that the Dutch interim injunction procedure [kort geding] is a preliminary measure as mentioned in article 31 EEX regulation [ECJ 27 April 1999, NJ 2001, 90 Mietz/Intership Yachting Sneek].
The ECJ has set some rules for the application of article 31 EEX regulation: there has to be a direct link between the object of the requested measures and the competence of the court based on the territorial criteria [ECJ 17 November 1998, NJ 1999, 339 Van Uden/ Deco-Line].
According to this decision a debt collection interim injunction procedure [incasso kort geding] only meets these criteria when:
- It is guaranteed that the awarded amount will be repaid to the defendant when the plaintiff has been denied the claim in the procedure on the merits.
- The preliminary measures only involve certain goods that are within the territory of the other court.
The court decides that these criteria are not met because there is no guarantee offered.
Because of this the court in The Netherlands have no competence based on article 31 EEX Regulation.
The court decides that the claims have to be denied because the Dutch courts are not competent to judge in this case.
Court of Almelo, 18-10-2012, LJN: BY1528
Pre-judgment attachment [conservatoir beslag]
In The Netherlands it is often very effective to have a pre-judgment attachment [conservatoir beslag] placed on assets of the debtor.
Pre-judgment attachment is used to secure the payment of a claim. When the claim is rewarded by a judge the attachment is used to recover the claim.
All assets of the debtor are subject to [pre-judgment] attachment. In The Netherlands we have
several forms of pre-judgment attachment:
- for the collection of receivables [verhaalsbeslag];
- to attach specific goods for the purpose of surrender [beslag tot afgifte];
- to attach specific goods for the delivery of goods [beslag tot levering];
- to seize goods that are held by someone else than the debtor, e.g. a bank, [derdenbeslag];
- to seize the goods held by somebody else than your direct debtor [derdenbeslag];
- to seize goods [including electronic data] in order to preserve evidence proving the breach of intellectual property rights [bewijsbeslag].
A Dutch lawyer can ask a court to give permission to have an attachment placed on goods.
For more information: Jos van der Wijst
[post_title] => An attachment on goods in The Netherlands does not make Dutch courts competent
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => open
[ping_status] => open
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => an-attachment-on-goods-in-the-netherlands-does-not-make-dutch-courts-competent
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2019-06-10 15:21:30
[post_modified_gmt] => 2019-06-10 13:21:30
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => http://bgadvocaten.nl/en/2012/11/05/an-attachment-on-goods-in-the-netherlands-does-not-make-dutch-courts-competent/
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => post
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[comment_count] => 0
[current_comment] => -1
[found_posts] => 74
[max_num_pages] => 8
[max_num_comment_pages] => 0
[is_single] =>
[is_preview] =>
[is_page] =>
[is_archive] => 1
[is_date] =>
[is_year] =>
[is_month] =>
[is_day] =>
[is_time] =>
[is_author] =>
[is_category] =>
[is_tag] =>
[is_tax] => 1
[is_search] =>
[is_feed] =>
[is_comment_feed] =>
[is_trackback] =>
[is_home] =>
[is_privacy_policy] =>
[is_404] =>
[is_embed] =>
[is_paged] => 1
[is_admin] =>
[is_attachment] =>
[is_singular] =>
[is_robots] =>
[is_favicon] =>
[is_posts_page] =>
[is_post_type_archive] =>
[query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => f36c974e47ba45ada4b7a3f34f42cc44
[query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => 1
[thumbnails_cached] =>
[allow_query_attachment_by_filename:protected] =>
[stopwords:WP_Query:private] =>
[compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array
(
[0] => query_vars_hash
[1] => query_vars_changed
)
[compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array
(
[0] => init_query_flags
[1] => parse_tax_query
)
[tribe_is_event] =>
[tribe_is_multi_posttype] =>
[tribe_is_event_category] =>
[tribe_is_event_venue] =>
[tribe_is_event_organizer] =>
[tribe_is_event_query] =>
[tribe_is_past] =>
[tribe_controller] => Tribe\Events\Views\V2\Query\Event_Query_Controller Object
(
[filtering_query:Tribe\Events\Views\V2\Query\Event_Query_Controller:private] => WP_Query Object
*RECURSION*
)
)
Azzurro, a Swiss investment company, claims in an interim injunction procedure, that Impossible BV, a Dutch company pays outstanding invoices for the amount of € 49.096,42. The court proceedings were...
Read more
U voert een discussie, heeft gelijk, maar stuit op weerstand aan de andere zijde. De wederpartij beweegt geen centimeter. Dus moet u zich tot de rechtbank wenden. Daarvoor moeten kosten...
Read more
Koninklijke Auping B.V. (hereinafter: Auping) is a bed manufacturer who sells its products at Auping stores and at specialized bed- and furniture stores. Auping wants to adopt a new distribution...
Read more
The Dutch companies DEPT and JC RAGS ordered the supply of jeans by the Portuguese company SICI 93 Braga. This company had the jeans manufactured in Brazil. Due to earlier...
Read more
