Tatiane Faria
Lawyer at Marcos Martins Advogados
In the majority of cases, the future harvest serves as a stimulus for new planting and is responsible for the rural producer’s capital turnover, making it essential for productive activities, especially for rural entrepreneurs in crisis. In this sense, the legal protection of agricultural production is fundamental for marketing income, with the aim of allowing investment in the company undergoing judicial reorganization.
The Judicial Reorganization Law No. 11.101/05 provides protection for assets that are essential to the economic activity of the company or rural producer that is under reorganization, making it impossible to sell them during the 180-day suspension period provided for in article 6, paragraph 4, with the aim of using the business activity to overcome the economic crisis and avoid the decree of bankruptcy.
However, the issue is contradictory in the courts, especially when the discussion turns to the income obtained through essential assets of the company undergoing judicial reorganization, as is the case with agricultural crop production.
In a recent decision, the Superior Court of Justice ruled in Resp 1.991.989/MA (2021/0323123-8) that the income obtained from the use of such assets is not considered essential to the rural producer undergoing judicial reorganization. This decision excluded the protection that prohibits alienation, sale or constriction during the suspension granted in favor of the rural producer in judicial reorganization, repairing the decision of the Maranhão Court of Justice, in an interlocutory appeal, which had understood that the amounts received from the sale of soybean and corn crops would be fundamental to the recovery of the rural entrepreneur in crisis.
When it handed down this decision, the Superior Court of Justice pointed out that the crop produced and sold by the rural producer in judicial reorganization is a capital asset, and is the end product of the company, not supported by the concept of the essentiality of assets for the continuity of the activity, thus determining the delivery of the future crop as a way of complying with the agreement signed by the rural producer and a third party before the reorganization process.
It is important to note that, by disregarding the essentiality of the raw material, there is a great risk that the rural producer will suffer constrictions or seizures of the future harvest, which could serve to foster business activity. This is because, in the case of grains produced by the rural producer in judicial reorganization, the production cycle can only be maintained if there are financial resources from their sale that will be invested in the continuation of the harvest.
Marcos Martins Advogados remains attentive to recent decisions and is ready to answer any questions from companies and rural producers who find themselves in this situation.
