Portugese version can be found here.

Two English versions, are here (summary) and here (full version, with highlights), pulled from Ehden's TG Channel.

A few points from the summary version (with some of my commentary):

Pfizer considered that the legal conditions in Brazil offered legal security to contract after Brazil has passed legislation # 14123 on March 10, 2021.

(Brazil changed its laws, such that Pfizer would feel legally safe having a contract with them).

Brazil called some of the clauses in the contract leonine clauses. A leonine clause is a contractual device established unilaterally by one party to the contract that prejudices the rights of the other party, usually by taking advantage of an asymmetric situation in the negotiation.

There were three legal clauses that Brazil considered incompatible with Brazilian law:

• Imposition of the pharmaceutical company - that Brazil had values in an account abroad, of Pfizer, as a guarantee of payment, in the so-called pre-purchase;
• that any contractual issue would be judged in a court in New York, in the United States; and
• that the Brazilian State would assume responsibility for any possible side effects of the vaccine.

During the negotiation the legislation did not allow the signing of the contract with the clauses imposed under these conditions. That is why the Federal Senate and the Brazilian Congress had to approve legislation allowing the Government to sign this contract with Pfizer.

(Pfizer contract disputes are to be handled in New York. Strange.)

(And the Brazilian Congress & Senate took care of these legal hurdles later on, read further in the document).

Brazil bought some vaccines without even having the emergency authorization by the Brazilian agency, Anvisa (On January 6, 2021).

(That's curious. Were any of them used prior to the EUA?)

Pfizer was working on reaching a capacity of 3 billion vaccine dosages by the end of 2021.

(Considering that Pfizer announced their jabs post-US-2020-election, that seems like quite the task. A year for 3 billion products?).

Murillo confirmed supply delays are natural, and claim he does not know if the contractual conditions allow a country (e.g. Italy) has the right to sue Pfizer for delays (EHDEN’S COMMENT – ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT YOU CANNOT SUE PFIZER FOR SUPPLY DELAYS). When asked directly, “Do these delays mean a violation to the population's health in Pfizer's evaluation?” Murillo’s response was “I could not answer this question objectively to you.”

(Pfizer is not legally responsible for any delay in vaccine deliveries, regardless of their contract due dates.)

According to Murillo’s understanding the adverse events reported associated with the vaccine are the same as those that have been proven in the initial clinical trial.

(The CEO Of Pfizer Latin America supposedly believes that the jabs are proving to be "just as safe" as in their clinical trials).