Name: EMMANUEL SANTIAGO MONTEIRO INTRA
Publication date: 08/04/2022
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| TIAGO FIGUEIREDO GONÇALVES | Advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| RODRIGO REIS MAZZEI | Internal Examiner * |
| TIAGO FIGUEIREDO GONÇALVES | Advisor * |
Summary: The present study targets the judicial recovery process, and the act in the
best interest validation as admissibility requirements of action, by
analyzing the prior finding technique, listed in the 51-A article, 11.101/05
Law. Aims demonstrate the relevance of the study of the institutes
procedural aspects, confirming that the procedural devices can and should
focus on mechanisms of achieving effectiveness and success of the judicial
recoveries in Brazil, as well as allowing straightness on the knowledge
regarding judicial procedures related to the corporate crisis. Thus, will be
analyzed the specific attributes of the judicial recovery process, labeling
it as a structural and collective process. In addition, it is analyzed the
judgment admissibility definition, the condition of action, and action in the
best interest, seeking its description on the judicial recovery process. This
way verifies the applicants requirement sets in creating economic and
social benefits by preserving its activities as part of the action in the
best interest of the judicial recovery process. After a technical approach of
the prior finding technique, the procedural method was used to verify this
requirement of the admissibility on the judicial recovery process
approval. It compares the prior finding technique to the one used in the
Italian Law, before the preventive arrangement process, to verify if the
company has the capability to achieve the Italian legal objectives, and as
its particularities can contribute to a better procedural technique in the
Brazilian legal system. Finally, discussions are made regarding the
possibility of the investigation of the best interest, using the evidence
activity before the admissibility judgment, from the provision of evidence as
a floating module, interpreting the article 381 of the CPC, and the
possibility of making the recovery procedure more flexible.
Keywords: Judicial Recovery Procedure; Collective Process; Structural
Process; Judgement Admissibility; Interest to Act; Prior Finding.
