What problem does it solve? Brazilian lawyers handling supplementary pension disputes must correctly distinguish closed pension funds (EFPC) from open plans (EAPC like PGBL/VGBL), because consumer protection law (CDC) applies to one but never the other, and misclassification leads to wrong legal strategy and jurisdiction. ## Core Features & Use Cases - EFPC vs EAPC Classification: Distinguishes closed pension funds governed by LC 109/2001 and LC 108/2001 from open PGBL/VGBL products under Decreto 4.203/2002, with a full comparison table covering CDC applicability, actuarial risk, taxation, and succession. - CDC Applicability Rules: Enforces Sumula 563 STJ (CDC does not apply to EFPC) versus Sumula 321 STJ (CDC may apply to EAPC), preventing the critical PA-21 error of mixing regimes. - Demand Typology and Jurisdiction: Covers benefit granting, actuarial recalculation, contribution restitution, deficit equacionamento, death benefit succession, and abusive charges, with jurisdiction mapping to state common courts. - Use Case: A participant sues a closed pension fund over a deficit equacionamento charge; the skill directs repelling any CDC-based argument with Sumula 563 STJ and grounding the case in the plan regulation in force at enrollment. ## Quick Start Analyze this supplementary pension case involving a PGBL plan and determine whether the CDC applies and which court has jurisdiction.
