Petrobras (PBR)

a) Judicial actions and contingencies

Petrobras and its subsidiaries are a defendant in numerous legal actions involving civil, tax, labor and environmental issues arising in the normal course of business. Based on the advice of its internal legal counsel and management`s best judgment, the Company has recorded accruals in amounts sufficient to provide for losses that are considered probable. As of March 31, 2007 these provisions are presented as follows, according to the nature of the corresponding causes:

(*) Net of the judicial deposit related to the provisioned for judicial proceeding – according to CVM Pronouncement nº 489/05

(a) Judicial actions and contingencies

PETROBRAS and its subsidiaries are a defendant in numerous legal actions involving civil, tax, labor and environmental issues arising in the normal course of business. Based on the advice of its internal legal counsel and management’s best judgment, the Company has recorded accruals in amounts sufficient to provide for losses that are considered probable. At December 31, the respective claims by type are as follows:

Other legal actions, not considered as probable losses, include the following:

On May 28,1981 KALLIUM MINERAÇÃO S.A. filed before the Federal Court of the State of Rio de Janeiro, a suit for compensation against COMPANHIA PESQUISA DE RECURSOS MINERAIS-CPRM, a mixed capital federal company, claiming approximately R$ 1.044.180 in alleged losses, damages and loss of profit due to the termination of a contract signed previously between the parties that authorized KALLIUM to develop a potassium mine in Sergipe. The contract was terminated due to an act of the federal government, which through Decree No. 77.725 of June 1, 1976, considered the transfer to CPRM of the prospecting rights carried out by the federal government in the area (art. 1) to be null and void, and as a result determined the reversal of the rights to the federal government, which subsequently transferred the rights to PETROBRAS, which in turn created the subsidiary PETROMISA (PETROBRAS MINERAÇÃO S.A.) to carry out the mining activities. In its defense, CPRM filed a petition, which was granted, for PETROBRAS to be cited in the case as a codefendant, since PETROMISA had been liquidated, which according to Brazilian legislation implies that its liabilities were transferred to the federal government. Also for this reason the federal government was cited as a codefendant.

Therefore, PETROBRAS considers that any compensation required to the liquidated subsidiary (PETROMISA) will be the responsibility of the federal government and not of PETROBRAS. On August 10, 1999, a decision was handed down that considered most of the plaintiff's petitions to be without grounds (losses, damages and loss of profit), requiring only PETROBRAS to reimburse “all expenses incurred as a result of the prospecting research” carried out, in accordance with amounts to be calculated in the final award. No award for loss of profit was established in the decision. The total amount of compensation payable to be established during the final award will be subject to monetary restatement and interest of 6% per annum calculated since the beginning of the suit. In September 1999 both parties filed appeals with the appeals court in the state of Rio de Janeiro, which were overruled. Special and Extraordinary Appeals have been filed and now await rulings. Based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the management does not expect an unfavorable outcome in this case. Therefore, no provision was established for this contingency. Expectation of loss: Remote.

On November 23, 1992, PORTO SEGURO IMÓVEIS LTDA., a minority stockholder of PETROQUISA, filed a suit against PETROBRAS in the state court of Rio de Janeiro related to alleged losses resulting from the sale of a minority holding by PETROQUISA in various petrochemical companies included in the National Privatization Program introduced by Law No. 8.031/90. In this suit, the plaintiff claims that PETROBRAS, as the majority stockholder in PETROQUISA, should be obliged to reinstate the “loss” caused to the net worth of PETROQUISA, as a result of the acts that approved the minimum sale price of its holding in the capital of privatized companies. A decision was handed down on January 14 of 1997 that considered PETROBRAS liable with respect to PETROQUISA for losses and damages in an amount equivalent to R$ 9.062.000. In addition to this amount, PETROBRAS was required to pay the plaintiff 5% of the value of the compensation as a premium (see art. 246, paragraph 2 of Law No. 6.404/76), in addition to attorneys’ fees of approximately 20% of the same amount. However, since the award would be payable to PETROQUISA and PETROBRAS holds 99.004% of its capital, the effective disbursement if the ruling is not reversed will be restricted to 25% of the total award. PETROBRAS filed an appeal with the State Court of Rio de Janeiro, and received a favorable decision from the Third Civil Court on February 11, 2003, which, by a majority vote, accepted PETROBRAS’ appeal to reverse the judgment and ruled the plaintiff’s case to be without grounds, and partially approved the Company’s appeal to reduce the amount of compensation to R$ 6.893.382. Against this decision, Porto Seguro filed another appeal (motion to reverse or annul) with the State Court of Rio de Janeiro, and the Fourth Civil Court handed down a unanimous decision on March 30, 2004 requiring PETROBRAS to indemnify PETROQUISA and Porto Seguro the amounts of R$ 6.893.382 and R$ 1.723.345 respectively (the latter representing 5% in premium and 20% in attorney’s fees). In view of this decision, PETROBRAS filed special and extraordinary appeals with the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Court respectively. Based on the opinion of its legal advisers, the Company does not expect to obtain an unfavorable ruling in this case. Expectation of loss: Possible.

The Fisherman’s Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FEPERJ) filed a civil suit against PETROBRAS with the Rio de Janeiro state court for compensation of miscellaneous damages amounting to R$ 537.417, which it is claiming in the name of its members, as a result of the oil spill in Guanabara Bay on January 18, 2000. A decision was handed down on February 7, 2002 which ruled the claim partially without grounds, rejecting pain and suffering, and requiring PETROBRAS to pay compensation for material damages and loss of profit to be calculated at the award phase. The ruling expressly declares that it is not reasonable to consider an award based on the amount claimed, since it was without economic base. Both parties appealed against the decision and on October 8, 2002 the Rio de Janeiro appeals court partially rejected the plaintiff’s appeal and partially sustained the appeal of PETROBRAS to exclude from the award “all those fishermen that have already made settlements in court or out of court as a result of the event”, together with those that have already “entered into litigation against the defendant“ in individual cases, in addition to “all those members of Fisherman’s Colony Z-13 (Copacabana)“. The decision handed down by the appeals court implies in effect that a judgment was awarded to pay compensation to a relatively small number of fishermen, considering that settlements were made with almost all members of the plaintiff that work in the areas affected by the accident. On February 17, 2003, PETROBRAS filed special and extraordinary appeals with the Superior Courts, which were dismissed. As such interlocutory appeals were filed on June 26, 2003. One was dismissed by the Higher Court and the other is pending Supreme Court judgment. Based on the opinion of its legal advisers, Company management believes that this case may result in a loss, but any adverse ruling would be for amounts significantly lower than the original claim for compensation. Expectation of loss: Possible.

The São Paulo tax authorities filed a tax suit against PETROBRAS, alleging that the Company did not pay ICMS levied on interstate sales of naphtha. However, during the period in which according to the State of São Paulo, PETROBRAS should have paid the ICMS, the Company was subject to a different tax regime (federal) on these sales, and for this reason enjoyed a tax holiday. The value of the matter in controversy is R$ 212.220. There is no guarantee that the final result of the legal case will be favorable to PETROBRAS, but even in the case of an unfavorable ruling, management does not believe that the award could have a material negative impact on the financial position of PETROBRAS. Expectation of loss: Possible.

PETROBRAS is a defendant in four labor claims filed by the UNIONS OF PETROLEUM WORKERS of three federal states (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Sergipe), alleging that official inflation rates for 1987, 1989 and 1990 (understatement of the official inflation rate - Bresser, Summer and Collor Plans) were not fully included in the workers’ salaries. The law suits are at different stages. Based on past favorable decisions in similar cases and on a final understanding of the TST, management does not expect an unfavorable decision in these suits. Three identical cases have been decided in favor of PETROBRAS. Expectation of loss: Remote.