By Brazil Stock Guide – Grupo Casas Bahia SA (BHIA3) plans to ask a court to exclude a roughly 174 million-real claim against GPA SA (PCAR3) from the supermarket operator’s out-of-court restructuring plan, arguing the debt stems from an arbitration award rather than a typical bank liability.
The information was reported by Valor Econômico. According to the report, Casas Bahia says the amount should not fall within the scope of GPA’s restructuring because it relates to an arbitration proceeding tied to a prior association agreement, with a final award already issued.
The dispute dates back to GPA’s 2009 acquisition of Globex, now Casas Bahia. In December 2025, GPA lost an arbitration case involving labor and civil obligations assumed in that transaction. The award covered damages owed to Casas Bahia and was set at about 170 million reais.
After the final arbitration ruling was issued, the liability shifted from long-term debt to a short-term obligation. Casas Bahia filed for enforcement of the award on Jan. 27 before the 3rd Business and Arbitration-Related Conflicts Court, seeking payment of the claim.
Following a court order requiring payment, GPA had until March 11 to settle the updated 174 million-real debt. The company said it faced liquidity constraints after the obligation moved from long-term to short-term maturity. GPA obtained court approval for its out-of-court restructuring on the same day the payment was due.
Casas Bahia’s total receivable from GPA is near the level of one of the company’s largest creditors, Banco BTG Pactual SA (BPAC11), which is owed 225 million reais, according to Valor. Of the Casas Bahia amount, 174 million reais refers to the arbitration case already decided.
Valor also reported that Casino Guichard-Perrachon SA, GPA’s former controlling shareholder, authorized monthly payments of those obligations to Casas Bahia while the company was part of the Casino group until 2019. After Casas Bahia was sold to a group of funds and Michael Klein, the payments were halted by decision of the French group, according to the report.
Legal strategy
Casas Bahia moved forward with its legal strategy on Friday (May 8), filing a request for clarification against a late-April ruling that rejected a similar request from Transportadora Sanzaneze and Sanzitrans Transportes Gerais Ltda. The two transport companies are owed 43 million reais.
The transporters, two of the 17 creditors subject to GPA’s restructuring, argued that the company’s plan was only a “draft.” They also said their credit should not be treated as ordinary financial debt because it involved “toll vouchers and third-party funds,” which they argued would prevent discounts, grace periods or installment payments.
The court rejected the request. Judge Henrique Ique ruled that creditor inclusion does not depend on individual consent if the claims fall within the categories covered by the restructuring plan.
“Although, at this stage, the plan presented is of a ‘standstill’ nature,” the situation has been clarified, the judge said, according to Valor. The term refers to a temporary freeze on collection efforts.
For the judge, all unsecured claims not tied to suppliers, service providers or landlords are part of the out-of-court restructuring. He also noted that, despite the companies being transporters, the plan does not clearly explain whether they provided services to GPA — and, if so, why they are listed as creditors, since service providers cannot be included in that creditor group.
Casas Bahia is also a party in litigation against GPA. Under its argument, that would mean it should not be treated as a signatory creditor of the supermarket retailer.
The company is seeking clarification on whether the court’s interpretation applies only to the effects of the stay period, or whether it anticipates a broader review of the legality of GPA’s restructuring plan. At the current stage, GPA is protected by the stay period, which gives the company roughly three months of protection from debt collection while it prepares and negotiates a plan with creditors.
Casas Bahia argues that the classification of creditor claims and the legality review of the plan should occur only after publication of the creditor meeting notice, the filing of any objections by creditors and GPA’s response.
“At this stage, it is fully appropriate only to define the scope of the stay period’s effects in relation to the claims listed by Grupo Pão de Açúcar in its covered-creditor list,” Casas Bahia said in its filing, according to Valor.
The retailer’s legal team, from TWK Advogados and led by Ivo Waisberg, asked the court to clarify whether the decision in the transporters’ case refers only to the stay period. It also wants confirmation that the legality of the plan will be reviewed later, after any creditor objections and GPA’s response.
Casas Bahia declined to comment, Valor reported. GPA said all claims included in its creditor list are within the perimeter of the out-of-court restructuring.