The Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Law (11.101/05) provides, in its article 6, paragraph 4, the non-extendable period of 180 days for the suspension of the processing of judicial actions against a company under reorganization. On the basis of this understanding, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) denied a request from a bus company for an indemnity action to be suspended until the final and unappealable decision of its judicial reorganization proceeding.
The action for compensation for moral damages was filed by a passenger who claimed to have received degrading treatment from a driver employed by the transport company.
See also:
Labor enforcement proceedings against companies in bankruptcy are suspended
The defense of the defendant company, at the Court of Justice of the Federal District, argued that it is up to the judicial reorganization court to decide on the assets of the company under reorganization, but its request was denied.
Thus, the defense filed a special appeal with the STJ, where the matter was reported by Justice Nancy Andrighi. She also denied the request, upholding the company’s sentence to pay R$ 5,000 in compensation, observing that the judgment closing the reorganization proceeding had already been handed down by the competent court, and there is no provision in the law requiring the final and unappealable decision of that ruling as a condition for resuming the processing of the actions, as the bus company intended.
On the contrary, the reporting justice stressed, the law states, literally, that the 180-day period is non-extendable. “The extrapolation of the period cannot constitute an expedient that leads to the generic and indiscriminate extension of the suspensive time frame for each and every proceeding related to the company, making it necessary to analyze the circumstances underlying each case,” she said. Her understanding was unanimously followed by the other members of the panel.
According to Nancy, it is necessary to consider that each reorganization proceeding involves complex factors that must be examined in light of the rules that enshrine the preservation of the company and the maintenance, in the debtor’s possession, of the capital assets essential to its activity.
In her view, keeping the actions suspended for an indiscriminate period, even after the approval of the plan, would offend the logic of reorganization. The debts owed must be satisfied, under penalty of a declaration of bankruptcy. If the debt is not part of the approved plan, there is no legal impediment to the continuation of the action.
“It is not even reasonable to admit that, in this particular case, the appellee should bear the burden that the requested suspension would impose on it, given the small size of its debt when compared to the economic scale of the company and the time elapsed since the action was filed, which would result in an affront to the principle of the effectiveness of jurisdiction,” she concluded.
← Back to blog