DPU — Defensoria Pública da União
Why didn't the DPU represent the Appellant in Case 1000293-10.2026.5.02.0050, even though he is an INSS beneficiary (NB 731.491.455-0), HIV-positive (CID B24), and acting pro se?
Vote on the questions you want answered. The 10 most voted rise to the Top 10 and become the institutional accountability agenda — TRT-2, MPT, OAB, IACHR, SEC, FCA, AMF, OECD, UN, and EcoVadis.
All 100 questions cataloged in this panel are open institutional demands sent to official bodies and regulators (such as TRT-2, MPT, OAB, IACHR, SEC, FCA, AMF, OECD, UN, and EcoVadis). Some institutions have issued statements in the proceedings. Issuing a statement is not answering: a question stays pending until the body answers what was asked.
Verbatim excerpts of those statements are recorded in the Timeline and in the Cemetery, with case number and date. When a response actually addresses a question, it will be published next to it, in full, with a link to the official document.
The ranking updates in real time. The top 10 become the institutional accountability agenda.
Why did the ruling acknowledge that the Appellant's "suffering is evident and undeniable" but fail to grant any compensation?
Why did the ruling of 05/07/2026 not address the absence of the contract under Article 9 of Law 6.019/74, even with three divergent versions for the same mandatory field (contract, eSocial, and final arguments)?
Why has the Ordinary Appeal (1000293-10.2026.5.02.0050) not yet been scheduled, even though the Appellant is HIV-positive (Law 12.008/2009) and the case is proceeding under the summary procedure?
Why did the ruling of 05/07/2026 not apply TST Precedent 443, even though Page Interim's timesheet recorded "MEDICAL CERTIFICATE" on the day of termination?
Why did the Judge issue a ruling on 05/07/2026 after having granted the request for the eSocial records on 04/27/2026, without waiting for the fulfillment of the due diligence he himself ordered?
Why did the ruling of 05/07/2026 not consider the MPT's Civil Inquiry (IC 1653.2026), which investigates the same pattern of temporary hiring by Page Interim?
Why did the Respondents submit 44 documents after the evidentiary phase closed (April 13, 2026), including documents under irregular seal, without the Court applying preclusion?
Why was the same hearing record (April 13, 2026), which declared preclusion for confidential documents, not applied when the Respondents submitted confidential documents on April 20, 2026?
Why did OAB/SP not comment on the case, considering it involves an HIV-positive individual, discriminatory dismissal, and acting in *jus postulandi*?
Why did TRT-2, the Ministry of Health, and the MPF not formally respond to the official letters issued by the Presidency of the Republic regarding the case?
Each phase has 5 questions. When the vote average reaches 100, the next phase is unlocked — even before the weekly deadline.
Why didn't the DPU represent the Appellant in Case 1000293-10.2026.5.02.0050, even though he is an INSS beneficiary (NB 731.491.455-0), HIV-positive (CID B24), and acting pro se?
Why did the Public Defender's Office of São Paulo act in the Appellant's eviction but not take over the representation in the labor lawsuit (1000293-10.2026.5.02.0050)?
Why did Page Interim and Pernod Ricard not cover the Appellant's treatment during the INSS leave (DIB 06/01/2026), even though the termination occurred on 04/03/2025?
Why was the Appellant's request for priority—as an HIV-positive individual (CID B24) with a certificate from Emílio Ribas—denied by the 50th Labor Court, even though Law 12.008/2009 guarantees priority to people with serious illnesses?
Why did the ruling of 05/07/2026 not address the absence of the contract under Article 9 of Law 6.019/74, even with three divergent versions for the same mandatory field (contract, eSocial, and final arguments)?
Why did the ruling of 05/07/2026 not consider the MPT's Civil Inquiry (IC 1653.2026), which investigates the same pattern of temporary hiring by Page Interim?
Why did the Judge issue a ruling on 05/07/2026 after having granted the request for the eSocial records on 04/27/2026, without waiting for the fulfillment of the due diligence he himself ordered?
Why did the ruling of 05/07/2026 not apply TST Precedent 443, even though Page Interim's timesheet recorded "MEDICAL CERTIFICATE" on the day of termination?
Why did the ruling acknowledge that the Appellant's "suffering is evident and undeniable" but fail to grant any compensation?
Why has the Ordinary Appeal (1000293-10.2026.5.02.0050) not yet been scheduled, even though the Appellant is HIV-positive (Law 12.008/2009) and the case is proceeding under the summary procedure?
Why did the MPT not impose any consequences on Page Interim after the 20-day deadline for document submission in Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1 was not met?
Why has the MPT, after formalizing the three divergent versions of justContr in the Order of May 20, 2026, not yet issued a conclusion on the systemic pattern of Page Interim's contracts?
Why did the MPT respond to the Senate (OF. 190/2026-CDH) and the Chamber of Deputies (Offices 42, 43, and 44/2026-P), but Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1 has not yet been concluded?
Why has the MPT, with the authority to sign TACs and file Public Civil Actions (ACPs), not yet taken any concrete measures against Page Interim, even though it has been investigating temporary contracts from the last 5 years?
Why did the MPT not disclose the number of workers affected by Page Interim's hiring practices investigated in Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1?
Why did TRT-2 and MPT not establish formal communication between the 50th Labor Court and Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1, given that both address the same hiring pattern?
Why did the Appellant not obtain full access to the eSocial documents granted by the discovery incident (ID b6980b6), even though the Court had granted the request?
Why did the Respondents submit 44 documents after the evidentiary phase closed (April 13, 2026), including documents under irregular seal, without the Court applying preclusion?
Why was preclusion applied to the sole document submitted by the Appellant after the evidentiary phase concluded, but not to the 44 documents submitted by the Respondents during the same period?
Why was the same hearing record (April 13, 2026), which declared preclusion for confidential documents, not applied when the Respondents submitted confidential documents on April 20, 2026?
Why did the Federal Senate, after notifying the MPT (OF. 190/2026-CDH), declare that it "fulfilled its role" without following up on the outcome of the request?
Why didn't the Chamber of Deputies follow up with the recipient institutions after sending official letters to the MPT (Official Letters 42, 43, and 44/2026-P)?
Why didn't the Senate's CDH demand a concrete response from the MPT regarding the progress of Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1?
Why did the CDHMIR of the Chamber not take any additional action when the MPT, Ministry of Health, and MPF did not respond to the official letters?
Why has OAB/SP not yet ruled on the ethical-disciplinary complaints against the Respondents' attorneys (Proc. 25.0886.2026.005573-5 and 25.0886.2026.005574-3), filed on 05/02/2026?
Why did OAB/SP not comment on the case, considering it involves an HIV-positive individual, discriminatory dismissal, and acting in *jus postulandi*?
Why did the DPU not act in the labor case (1000293-10.2026.5.02.0050), even with an official request from the Chamber of Deputies (Official Letter 44/2026-P) explicitly asking for their involvement?
Why did the Public Defender's Office of São Paulo act in the eviction process but not assume representation in the labor lawsuit of the same assisted party?
Why did the INSS grant disability benefits (NB 731.491.455-0, DIB 06/01/2026), but the company was not required to cover the treatment costs during the leave of absence?
Why did INSS not officially notify Pernod Ricard and PageGroup to demand payment for the treatment, considering that the incapacity resulted from the contract termination?
Why did SRTE-SP schedule mediation (June 8, 2026, Voucher 745978644/2026) but fail to issue an Infraction Notice against Page Interim, even with the MPT's Civil Inquiry underway?
Why didn't the SRTE disclose the outcome of the June 8, 2026 service — whether there was formal mediation, an Infraction Notice, or a referral to the MPT?
Why did TRT-2, the Ministry of Health, and the MPF not formally respond to the official letters issued by the Presidency of the Republic regarding the case?
Why did the Ministry of Health not take any action to guarantee the Appellant's access to ART after receiving an official letter from the Presidency of the Republic?
Why has the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (NF 1.34.001.002262/2026-11) opened a proceeding but not yet issued any recommendations or protective measures for the Appellant?
Why didn't the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office notify Pernod Ricard and PageGroup about the violation of the Appellant's health and labor rights?
Why did the TRT-2 Internal Affairs (PJECor 0000369-59.2026.2.00.0502) not take any measures to expedite the judgment of the Ordinary Appeal?
Why did the CNJ (Proc. 0002339-48.2026.2.00.0000) dismiss the Appellant's complaint and fail to respond to the request for unarchiving on April 28, 2026?
Why hasn't the CNMP been called upon to investigate the MPT's inaction in Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1, whose systemic investigation covers five years of contracts?
Why did the AGU, which provided Order SEI No. 871295 via LAI, not communicate its existence to the MPT or MPF within the scope of the ongoing proceedings?
Why has the IACHR not yet granted Precautionary Measure MC-537-26, even in the face of documented risks to the Appellant's life, health, and housing?
Why has the IACHR not yet ruled on the admissibility of MC-537-26, after requesting additional information on April 9, 2026?
Why did the Brazil NCP accept the Specific Instance on 04/14/2026, but has not yet completed the initial assessment of the case?
Why did the French NCP (Florent Dauba, DGT) accept the Specific Instance but still take no action on Pernod Ricard SA's surveillance plan?
Why has the UK NCP (FCDO) not yet responded to the Specific Instance, even though it is the home country of PageGroup (FTSE 250)?
Why did the OECD not establish formal coordination between the NCPs of Brazil, France, and the United Kingdom within the scope of this trilateral Specific Instance?
Why did the UN Global Compact, after receiving complaint Protocol 00080458, not initiate a dialogue process with Pernod Ricard and PageGroup regarding violations of Principles 1, 2, and 6?
Why has the UN Global Compact, which gives companies two months to respond, not yet formalized a response regarding Protocol 00080458?
Why has UNAIDS (Case Nr 13631) recognized the urgency of the case but still not issued any formal recommendations to the companies or the Brazilian government?
Why did UNAIDS not publicly comment on the 144+ day interruption of the Appellant's antiretroviral treatment, as documented in the report from Instituto Emílio Ribas?
Why has the Défenseur des Droits (France) opened two protocols (26-W-016280 and 26-016527) but not yet issued any recommendations or sanctions against Pernod Ricard?
Why has the AMF (France) received complaint E2604474 but not yet taken any action regarding Pernod Ricard SA's disclosure obligations?
Why didn't the French Embassy in Brazil, upon receiving correspondence about a violation of the Loi de Vigilance, forward the case to the competent authorities in Paris?
Why didn't the UK Embassy in Brazil forward the case to the UK NCP (FCDO) upon receiving correspondence regarding the OECD Guidelines?
Why has the SEC (USA) not yet issued a formal response regarding the analysis of TCR 17747-522-785-913, even with 15 documents filed under penalty of perjury on March 28, 2026?
Why has the FCA (UK) not yet initiated an investigation into PageGroup (FTSE 250) based on complaint Case 212241170?
Why did EcoVadis activate formal monitoring (Live News Monitoring + 360° Watch) on June 2, 2026, but still hasn't updated the ESG rating for Pernod Ricard or PageGroup?
Why has EcoVadis, the world's largest ESG rating platform, not yet incorporated the signed TRCT, IACHR MC-537-26, and MPT IC 1653.2026 as material facts for company evaluations?
Why has the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund (GPFG), formally notified about the case, not yet initiated an exclusion assessment of Pernod Ricard and PageGroup from its portfolio?
Why did the ILO, after receiving the complaint in April 2026, only respond that "complaints against external entities are outside the scope of its authority"—without forwarding the case to the OECD or the OAS?
Goldman Sachs Alternatives completed the acquisition of a majority stake in NAVEX on October 14, 2025 (verified press release). Why has no conflict of interest management policy been publicly disclosed regarding client companies of the platform in which Goldman Sachs holds equity positions?
NAVEX's official documentation confirms that there is no automatic notification mechanism to external regulators after a report is made. Why has NAVEX not implemented automatic escalation to the SEC or DOJ for reports involving ADR issuers, in the spirit of SOX §301 and Dodd-Frank §922?
Schroder Investment Management, Franklin Templeton, and Capital Group have common ownership in PageGroup and Pernod Ricard (MarketScreener/filings data). Why have none of these asset managers publicly disclosed their positions regarding the active international proceedings against the two companies?
Goldman Sachs controls NAVEX, a platform used by PageGroup (pagegroup.ethicspoint.com) and Pernod Ricard (pernodricard.ethicspoint.com). Why has Goldman Sachs not published an independence policy for cases where the owner of the compliance infrastructure has financial exposure to the companies being reported?
NAVEX's official documentation confirms that each EthicsPoint portal is an isolated instance, lacking a native cross-entity escalation mechanism. Why does a platform used by 95% of Fortune 100 companies not have the architecture to identify systemic patterns that cross multiple clients?
NAVEX's official documentation confirms that the case manager is appointed by the reported company itself. Why does NAVEX allow the reported company to control the severity classification and closure of a report that directly affects it, without independent external review?
The internal complaint at Pernod Ricard (Speak Up/Whispli Ref: 2116ac54) was filed on March 25, 2026, and did not result in any documented corrective action. Why did the companies not disclose the criteria used to classify and close the complaint internally?
Goldman Sachs began controlling the compliance infrastructure of 95% of the world's largest companies in October 2025. Why has no transparency policy been published regarding how NAVEX handles complaints involving companies in which Goldman Sachs has documented equity holdings?
PageGroup and Pernod Ricard operate separate EthicsPoint portals. Why, when faced with complaints about the same case on both portals, did neither company coordinate internally nor escalate to external regulators?
NAVEX's official documentation does not describe any automatic escalation mechanism to the SEC or DOJ. Why has NAVEX not implemented such a mechanism for complaints involving foreign issuers with ADRs in the US, as per §922 of Dodd-Frank and §806 of SOX?
IACHR MC-537-26, MPT IC 005856.2026.02.000/1, Défenseur des Droits, and SEC TCR 17747-522-785-913 are public records. Why did Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not disclose them in their Communications on Progress to the Global Compact and in their sustainability reports?
The TCR 17747-522-785-913 was filed under penalty of perjury on March 28, 2026. Why did Pernod Ricard SA not assess the need to disclose this fact in light of Exchange Act §929P, which establishes SEC jurisdiction over ADR issuers?
MPT Civil Inquiry No. 005856.2026.02.000/1 covers five years of temporary contracts from Page Interim do Brasil, a subsidiary in Pernod Ricard's supply chain. Why did Pernod Ricard SA (CIK 0001060349) not assess the materiality of this fact for its Form 20-F and communications to the AMF?
MPT Civil Inquiry No. 005856.2026.02.000/1 is investigating the Brazilian subsidiary of PageGroup. Why did PageGroup PLC not assess the materiality of this fact for disclosure to the FCA, considering it maintains 48 active contracts with the British government?
The michaelpage.co.uk website lists the SFO, NCA, Cabinet Office, FCDO, and HMRC as active clients—all agencies that would ordinarily investigate the facts of this case. Why has none of these agencies submitted this recruitment relationship for a formal conflict of interest assessment under the Procurement Act 2023?
Goldman Sachs holds documented positions in Allianz, AXA, Hannover Re, Munich Re, Swiss Re, and SCOR—insurers and reinsurers in the European D&O market. Why did Goldman Sachs not disclose a conflict of interest assessment, given that it simultaneously controls NAVEX and has exposure to the D&O insurers of the reported companies?
The SEC Annual Report FY2025 records $60 million paid — the lowest amount since 2017 — while complaints increased by 8%. Why did the SEC not publish an explanation regarding the impact of the 17% staff reduction on its capacity to process the 27,000 complaints received in FY2025?
FCA received complaint Case 212241170 regarding PageGroup (FTSE 250, Main Market). Why has FCA not yet informed the complainant of the initial triage outcome, as per the deadlines set out in the FCA Consumer Standards?
The AMF registered case E2604474 with a "presumption of dysfunction." Why has the AMF not yet informed the complainant about the current stage of the procedure—triage, evidentiary phase, or Sanctions Committee?
Brown-Forman was formally notified of all active international proceedings on March 29, 2026 — three days after the first 8-K filing on March 26, 2026. Why did the second 8-K filing on April 28, 2026, which terminated negotiations with Pernod Ricard, make no reference to this notification or any of the listed proceedings?
The Appellant has documented HIV, an active eviction order, and 144+ days without ART. Why did Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not seek an out-of-court settlement, even though they were aware of the imminent risk to life and housing?
MPT Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1 investigates temporary contracts at Page Interim over the past 5 years. Why have Page Interim and Pernod Ricard not implemented any corrective measures for contracts in force since the inquiry began?
Pernod Ricard and PageGroup are signatories of the UN Global Compact. Why was complaint Protocol 00080458 — which alleges violations of Principles 1, 2, and 6 — not disclosed in their respective Communications on Progress?
In March 2026, the same sender (bo.2017sp@gmail.com) was communicating normally with the same PageGroup recipients. On May 29, 2026 — one day after the Ordinary Appeal was filed — all 5 email channels simultaneously blocked the Appellant via Mimecast (error 554), including the centralized termination channel. Why did 5 PageGroup email channels simultaneously block the Appellant on this specific date?
The MPT Order of May 20, 2026, formalized three divergent versions of the mandatory legal field: 'COMPLEMENTARY DEMAND' (contract), 'SUPPORT FOR NEW STRATEGIC BRAND POSITIONING CAMPAIGNS' (eSocial), and 'replacement of an employee on maternity leave' (final arguments). Why did Pernod Ricard not disclose this divergence—documented in an official MPT act—in its sustainability reports?
SRTE-SP has the authority to issue infraction notices and summon companies for formal mediation. Why did Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not inform their shareholders and ESG analysts about the meeting scheduled for June 8, 2026 (Proof 745978644/2026)?
EcoVadis activated formal monitoring on June 2, 2026 — the first independent body to formally recognize the case. Why did Pernod Ricard not evaluate this fact in light of its market disclosure obligations?
The Défenseur des Droits opened two protocols (26-W-016280 and 26-016527) concerning violations of the French Loi de Vigilance. Why did Pernod Ricard SA not disclose these to the AMF and the market, given that the Loi de Vigilance is part of the annually reported vigilance plan?
The UK NCP accepted the Specific Instance regarding PageGroup. Why did PageGroup PLC not disclose this fact to the FCA and the market, especially considering the potential impact on the 48 contracts with the British government?
The French NCP accepted the Specific Instance regarding Pernod Ricard SA. Why did Pernod Ricard SA not disclose this fact to the AMF and the market, as required by Article 17 of the MAR for inside information?
The Défenseur des Droits is investigating Pernod Ricard for violating the Loi de Vigilance. Why did Pernod Ricard SA not incorporate protocols 26-W-016280 and 26-016527 into its annually published vigilance plan, nor disclose them to the AMF?
The UK NCP accepted a Specific Instance regarding PageGroup. Why did PageGroup PLC not assess this fact in light of Article 17 of MAR (Market Abuse Regulation) and the FCA's DTRs, which require the disclosure of inside information?
IACHR MC-537-26, PCN France, and Défenseur des Droits are active international proceedings against Pernod Ricard SA. Why have none of them been disclosed in the Form 20-F (SEC) or in communications to the AMF as a material risk factor?
The TCR 17747-522-785-913 was filed under penalty of perjury with the SEC. Why have Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not incorporated this fact into their Global Compact Communication on Progress, which requires reporting on whistleblowing mechanisms and their outcomes?
The MPT Civil Inquiry NF 005856.2026.02.000/1 is active and has a 5-year scope. Why did Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not disclose its existence in their sustainability reports (GRI Standards, CDP), where the reporting of relevant labor disputes is required?
Protocol 00080458 was sent to the UN Global Compact, with follow-up confirmed for April 25, 2026. Why did Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not formally respond to the Global Compact within the two-month period stipulated by the Integrity Measures Policy?
Pernod Ricard holds UN Global Compact LEAD status — the program's highest level of engagement. With an active complaint (Protocol 00080458) alleging violations of Principles 1, 2, and 6, why have no measures been communicated to investors or the Global Compact to preserve this status?
MPT IC 005856, CIDH MC-537-26, and OCDE NCP (3 countries) are active public proceedings. Why have Pernod Ricard and PageGroup not published any statements to their investors and ESG analysts regarding the current status of these proceedings and the risk management measures adopted?
Pernod Ricard is a signatory to the Loi de Vigilance, the OECD Guidelines, and the UN Global Compact. PageGroup holds the Investors in People accreditation. Why have neither company publicly explained how these commitments apply to the temporary hiring practices of their subsidiaries and suppliers in Brazil?
Page Interim's own timesheet records "MEDICAL CERTIFICATE" on the day of termination. The Emílio Ribas report documents 144+ days without ART. The TRCT was signed by both companies. Why haven't Pernod Ricard and PageGroup — signatories of the ILO, UN, and OECD — explained to the public how these commitments applied to the case of an HIV-positive worker dismissed on the day of a medical certificate?