Cesar Peres Dulac Müller logo

CPDMA BLOG

Category:
Date: March 11, 2021
Posted by: CPDMA Team

The extension of the "stay period" in the judicial recovery after Law 14.112/20

Law 14,122 of December 24, 2020 produced a series of amendments to Law 11,101/05, including the possibility of extending the so-called “stay period” (deadline for suspension of claims against the debtor undergoing judicial reorganization).

The rule is contained in art. 6, §4 and reads as follows: "§ 4 In judicial reorganization, the suspensions and prohibition mentioned in items I, II and III of the caput of this article shall last for a period of 180 (one hundred and eighty) days, counted from the granting of the recovery processing, extendable for an equal period, only once, on an exceptional basis, provided that the debtor has not competed with the overcoming of the time lapse”. 

That is, by the new text, the suspension period can only be extended once and provided that the debtor has not contributed to “overcoming the time lapse” (it is assumed that the legislator meant “without the debtor having contributed for non-deliberation on the recovery plan within 180 days").

The change in question is that, until then, the rule of art. 6, §4 treated such term as unextendable, regardless of any reason that could justify the delay in deliberations on the plan.

Such prohibition (to the extension), as was to be expected, has always been ruled out by the jurisprudence, which identified that the period of 180 days was based on the concatenation of procedural acts and legal deadlines that would culminate in the deliberation on the recovery plan, after what about stay period it lost its reason for being - if the plan was approved, the obligations covered by it were considered novated and started to be fulfilled in the terms provided for in the plan; if, on the other hand, the plan is rejected, the judicial reorganization is converted into bankruptcy, and then the suspension takes place as a result of this and for the purposes of the universal contest.

That is, in theory, the extension of the stay period shouldn't even be needed.

But practice has since shown - and the courts have always understood this - that, more often than not, the process is not ripe for deliberation on the judicial reorganization plan in 180 days, without there being "competition by the debtor The reasons are the most varied, and range from the simple difficulty of the notary process (there are still few specialized courts) to obstacles created by creditors or possibly by the debtor itself; given the natural complexity of the recovery process, none of this is surprising nor should it be seen as an exception.

Events such as these are commonly completely beyond the control of the company under reorganization, the court or the judicial administration; and will occur whether the legislator wants it or not.

What is meant here is that making the non-extendable term extendable, but establishing that this extension only takes place for a single predetermined period, is nothing more than making the term that, after all, continues to be longer, non-extendable - and which, in practice, has always been extended (even when “non-extendable”).

the time of stay period should be as extensive as necessary for deliberation on the plan, avoiding the asset grabbing which, on the one hand, makes the debtor's activity and compliance with the recovery plan unfeasible and, on the other hand, empties the assets that would serve to satisfy the community of creditors in the bankruptcy process .

The concern with the reasonable duration of the process is to be commended, but as experience has consistently shown, it is not the setting of deadlines that makes the process go as planned. For this, it is necessary to provide the process with structure and tools that allow printing the appropriate procedure; it is to deliver to the notaries and courts the work structure sufficient for the volume of demands; is to prevent procedural chicanery and streamline procedures.

Without this, trying to interpret that the period that was non-extendable - but that was extended - is no longer (extendable) because if it made it longer, is to defend that the period, whatever it may be, is sufficient. It is known that it is not - at least not always, and not necessarily. Until it is, the ever so talked about stay period must be extended for as long as is necessary for the reorganization plan to be deliberated, provided, of course, that the debtor has not contributed to delaying the process (as has always been understood by the jurisprudence).

Source: Daniel Burchardt Piccoli, lawyer and partner at Cesar Peres Dulac Müller.

Return

Recent posts

The STJ decides that stock options (option to purchase shares or quotas) cannot be seized.

On November 5th, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice ruled, through the judgment of REsp 1841466[1], under the rapporteurship of Minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, on the impossibility of seizing stock options. The case focused on the possibility of a third party exercising the right to purchase shares in […]

Read more

Governance in family businesses: essential structures and instruments

A governança corporativa em empresas familiares tem ganhado cada vez mais relevância no cenário empresarial brasileiro, no qual cerca de 90% das empresas possuem controle familiar. A ausência de um planejamento adequado para a sucessão do negócio e a dificuldade de manter a harmonia nas relações familiares, em muitos casos, culminam no fracasso da empresa […]

Read more
Resolution No. 586/2024 of the CNJ and the Future of Agreements in Labor Justice

On 09/30/2024, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) unanimously approved Resolution No. 586 through Normative Act 0005870-16.2024.2.00.0000, which regulates the agreement between employee and employer in the termination of the employment contract, through approval by the Labor Justice system, with full settlement of the contract. In other words, […]

Read more
The Legitimacy of Associations and Foundations to Request Judicial Reorganization and the New Stance of the STJ.

At the beginning of October, the 3rd Panel of the STJ, by majority vote, issued a decision in four special appeals (REsp 2.026.250, REsp 2.036.410, REsp 2.038.048, and REsp 2.155.284), ruling against the active legitimacy of nonprofit foundations to request Judicial Reorganization. This unprecedented decision appears, at first glance, […]

Read more
Government of RS Establishes Recovery Program II: Installment Plan for Companies Under Bankruptcy Protection

The Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul has instituted the Recovery Program II through Decree No. 57,884 of October 22, 2024, with the objective of allowing the installment of tax and non-tax debts for entrepreneurs or business entities under bankruptcy protection, including taxpayers whose bankruptcy […]

Read more
Renegotiation of BRL 60 Billion in Debt for Companies Under Bankruptcy Protection Regularized by PGFN

With information from Valor Econômico newspaper. Original article link: http://glo.bo/3NOicuU Since 2020, the Office of the Attorney General of the National Treasury (PGFN) has been advancing negotiations to regularize debts of companies under bankruptcy protection, resulting in the renegotiation of approximately BRL 60 billion. The number of regularized companies has tripled, reaching 30% of cases, thanks to a more collaborative approach from the […]

Read more
crossmenuchevron-down
en_USEnglish
linkedin Facebook pinterest youtube lol twitter Instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter Instagram