Two former managers of Caixa Asset who opposed last year the purchase of a lot of 500 million reais in financial invoices from Banco Master, Considered too risky by state bank standards, they went to the labor court to sue Caixa after losing their positions.
- Legal trench: The millionaire value of the contract of the wife of Alexandre de Moraes with the tangled Banco Master
- Also read: Toffoli’s decision stops the progress of investigations
As the blog revealed, technicians from Caixa Asset, the bank’s asset management arm, warned in July 2024 that the Master it lacked “clarity, efficiency and consistency in its figures”, with an economic model “difficult to understand” and a “high solvency risk for the institution”. As it turned out later, the fears turned out to be justified. Yet managers lost their commission-based positions.
They continue to work at the bank, but today occupy purely bureaucratic positions, below their professional qualifications, even if they have the CFA on their CV, one of the most prestigious certifications for financial market executives.
- Remember: Caixa technicians warned in 2024 that Master did not have “clarity, efficiency and consistency in its figures”
- A year ago: Caixa executives lose their position after blocking a “risky” and “atypical” 500 million reais transaction from Master
According to the blog, Maurício Vendruscolo and Daniel Cunha Gracio have decided to sue Caixa due to the consequences of the Master affair, under the pretext that they were the target of reprisals within the company – and are seeking compensation.
In a confidential 19-page opinion, the bond sector of Caixa Asset categorically advised against the 500 million reais transaction with Master, considered “atypical” and “risky”not only because of the value, considered too high, but also because of the bank’s rating. The negotiations also concerned an additional 500 million reais that the owner of Master, Daniel Vorcaro, offered to the Caixa treasury, for a total of 1 billion reais for the acquisition of financial securities.
The episode opened a crisis at Caixa Asset, had repercussions on the financial market and led the managers Daniel Cunha Gracio, from the bond sector, who signed the notice against the operation, and Maurício Vendruscolo, from the variable income sector, who also approved the documents, to lose their positions. The agreement with the Master was never concluded.
Last month, the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU) recommended that Caixa Asset improve governance and risk management, after an audit highlighted weaknesses in the institution’s governance.
- Transparency: Toffoli decrees secrecy and transforms Vorcaro’s action into a black box
- Analysis: Gilmar and Toffoli shields are Supreme Court blow to democracy
“Although the responses of Caixa and Caixa Asset indicate that there are governance mechanisms and reporting channels, they could not exclude the evidence that the dismissals of the national managers, in particular Daniel Cunha Gracio, then national director of GEFIX, were motivated by retaliation for the position contrary to the proposal DITER 004/2024 (the proposal to purchase financial securities of Banco Master), compromising the credibility of the governance of Caixa Asset”, underlined the TCU. verification.
What former managers and Caixa say
Contacted by the blog, the former leaders made no comment.
- Battle: The Central Bank document that helped Vorcaro get out of prison
- Congress: The senator tries to “resuscitate” the CPI after the operation which led to the arrest of the CEO
Their defense lawyer, Marco Galduróz Filho, said he would not comment because the proceedings are taking place under judicial secrecy.
Caixa indicated that “the bank does not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.”
- Indictment: STF wing panics over Gilmar Mendes’ decision
- Behind the scenes: Messias supports STF critics in marathon to overcome Senate rejection
In response to questions from the report, the advisory service of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd region (TRT-2), based in São Paulo, limited itself to communicating that “access to proceedings under judicial secrecy is reserved for the parties and the trial judge”.
About The Author
