Post by account_disabled on Mar 14, 2024 3:26:10 GMT
The right to property prevails over the principle of preserving the company provided for by the recovery and bankruptcy law. With this understanding, the 2nd Chamber of Business Law of São Paulo granted an appeal to maintain eviction actions against the stores of the Ricardo Eletro Group, which is in the process of extrajudicial recovery.
The group filed a request for extrajudicial B2B Lead recovery, requesting urgent relief to suspend, for a period of 180 days, the eviction actions proposed against its stores in Brazil. The 2nd Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganization Court of São Paulo granted the request, suspending the ongoing proceedings.
One of the creditors appealed the decision. The shopping mall in Aparecida de Goiânia (GO), represented by lawyer Leonardo Honorato , from GMPR Advogados , asked the TJ-SP to reform the sentence based on the thesis that the right to repossess property is not subject to the company recovery process , based on article 49, paragraph 3, of Law 11,101/05.
The mall highlighted that this is the dominant jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice. “Creditors not adhering to the extrajudicial recovery plan will be able to regularly continue with the actions and executions filed against the company under recovery", stated the defense. "Especially because, under the terms of the caput of article 165 of Law 11,101/05, the recovery extrajudicial proceedings only take effect after judicial approval”, he added.
The rapporteur of the case, judge Maurício Pessoa, accepted the defense's arguments and highlighted that it is not possible to "prevent the landlord from repossessing the property leased from those who require extrajudicial recovery just because of the extrajudicial recovery — its effects, its destination, etc. — and despite the regularity of the grounds for resumption (eviction due to non-payment, breach of contract, empty denunciation, etc.)".
When granting the appeal, the judge, followed by all members of the panel, determined “the continuation of the eviction actions filed against the aggravated parties regardless of the basis of the claim for resumption”.