Nathalia Brum
Lawyer at Marcos Martins Advogados
In a recent decision, the 4th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that until the decision terminating the judicial reorganization has become final, the reorganization court still has jurisdiction to administer the assets of the company under reorganization.
The reorganized company was facing an execution in another court that threatened to expropriate its assets, while the judicial reorganization was still active. The Federal District Court ruled that the execution court, and not the reorganization court, had jurisdiction to decide on the expropriatory acts, considering that the reorganization process had already been sentenced to end and that the appellant had not proven that the credit under execution was included in the reorganization plan.
The company under judicial reorganization appealed to the STJ claiming that the reorganization was in force and, for this reason, the jurisdiction of the reorganization court should have been observed to deal with the expropriation of the assets of the company under reorganization, even if the claim had not been submitted to the judicial reorganization plan, and that Precedent 480/STJ did not apply to the case.
Justice Raul Araújo, the appeal’s rapporteur, stated that the Federal District Court of Justice had acted in disagreement with the STJ’s case law by concluding that the execution court had jurisdiction because, as the judgment closing the judicial reorganization had not yet become final, the reorganization court continued to make decisions about the debtor company’s assets.
However, the Reporting Justice took the view that, as the judgment does not make it clear whether the assets sought to be seized are covered by the reorganization plan, a fact that also influences the establishment of jurisdiction for judging the acts of seizure, the case files should be returned to their origin so that the issue can be analyzed in the light of the case law established by the STJ.
Thus, by a majority, the STJ determined that the reorganization court has jurisdiction to decide on the acts of seizure of the assets of the company subject to judicial reorganization until the final and unappealable judgment closing the judicial reorganization.
