Dever de cooperação entre o juízo da execução fiscal e o juízo da recuperação juidicial: análise do art. 6, §7º-b da Lei nº 11.101/2005
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2024-05
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Alvarenga, Beatriz Principe
Orientador
Francisco, José Carlos
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
A presente monografia expõe, a partir de uma análise legislativa, bibliográfica e jurisprudencial, como a cooperação judiciária, posta no §7º-B do art. 6º da Lei nº 11.101/2005, introduzida pela alteração legislativa promovida pela Lei nº 14.112/2020, vem sendo aplicada nos procedimentos de recuperação judicial frente ao deferimento de atos de contrição sobre o patrimônio da empresa em crise econômico-financeira pelos juízos das execuções fiscais. Ao analisar a forma de aplicação, se buscou ainda, específica e objetivamente, estudar se essa inovação legislativa, com a inclusão do §7º-B, se apresenta como um dever a solucionar o complexo tema de harmonizar o regime público com o regime privado. Para tanto, foi realizada, além de uma análise de bibliografias e do art. 6º, §7º-B da Lei nº 11.101/2005, um estudo de jurisprudência no âmbito do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e das Câmaras Reservadas do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo, a fim de verificar como os Tribunais têm decido quanto a aplicação da referida norma. Ao final, foi possível concluir que a Corte Superior e, logicamente, as Câmaras Reservadas do TJSP adotam como critérios para legitimar a aplicação da cooperação entre o juízo recuperatório e o juízo das execuções fiscais, elementos temporais e materiais. O primeiro refere-se ao fato de que a cooperação judiciária se faz a posteriori, ou seja, não é preventiva. Já o segundo está atrelado a indicação da essencialidade do bem pelo juízo da recuperação judicial. Foi possível inferir também, quanto ao elemento material, que a norma legal em estudo limitou a manifestação do juízo recuperatório ao ato de substituição, ainda que esse possua um caráter universal frente aos juízos executivos. Em relação a isso, percebeu-se, no mais, que as Câmaras Reservadas do TJSP adotam, outrossim, critérios de subanálises para a promoção da cooperação, os quais compreendem na (i) demonstração específica que a constrição constituiria em óbice à preservação da atividade empresária da devedora em recuperação judicial e de (ii) indicação de outro bem para que a substituição possa ser efetuada.
Based on a legislative, bibliographical and jurisprudential analysis, this monograph explains how judicial cooperation, set out in §7º-B of article 6º of Law 11.101/2005, introduced by the legislative amendment promoted by Law 14.112/2020, has been applied in judicial reorganization procedures in the face of the granting of constrictive acts on the assets of the company in economic and financial crisis by the Tax Foreclosure Courts. By analyzing the form of application, we sought specifically and objectively to study whether this legislative innovation, with the inclusion of §7º-B, presents itself as a duty to solve the complex issue of harmonizing the public regime with the private regime. For this purpose, in addition to an analysis of bibliographies and art. 6º, §7-Bº of Law 11.101/2005, a study of case law was carried out within the Superior Court of Justice and the Reserved Chambers of the São Paulo Court of Justice, in order to verify how the Courts have ruled on the application of this rule. In the end, it was possible to conclude that the Superior Court and, logically, the Reserved Chambers of the São Paulo Court of Justice adopt temporal and material elements as criteria to legitimize the application of cooperation between the reorganization court and the tax foreclosure court. The first refers to the fact that judicial cooperation takes place afterwards, in other words, it is not preventive. The second is linked to the judicial reorganization court's indication that the asset is essential. It was also possible to infer, with regard to the material element, that the legal rule under study limited the manifestation of the reorganization court to the act of substitution, even though this has a universal character in relation to executive courts. In this regard, it was also noted that the Reserved Chambers of the São Paulo Court of Justice also adopt sub-analysis criteria for promoting cooperation, which include (i) specifically demonstrating that the restriction would constitute an obstacle to preserving the business activity of the debtor in judicial reorganization and (ii) indicating another asset so that the substitution can be made.
Based on a legislative, bibliographical and jurisprudential analysis, this monograph explains how judicial cooperation, set out in §7º-B of article 6º of Law 11.101/2005, introduced by the legislative amendment promoted by Law 14.112/2020, has been applied in judicial reorganization procedures in the face of the granting of constrictive acts on the assets of the company in economic and financial crisis by the Tax Foreclosure Courts. By analyzing the form of application, we sought specifically and objectively to study whether this legislative innovation, with the inclusion of §7º-B, presents itself as a duty to solve the complex issue of harmonizing the public regime with the private regime. For this purpose, in addition to an analysis of bibliographies and art. 6º, §7-Bº of Law 11.101/2005, a study of case law was carried out within the Superior Court of Justice and the Reserved Chambers of the São Paulo Court of Justice, in order to verify how the Courts have ruled on the application of this rule. In the end, it was possible to conclude that the Superior Court and, logically, the Reserved Chambers of the São Paulo Court of Justice adopt temporal and material elements as criteria to legitimize the application of cooperation between the reorganization court and the tax foreclosure court. The first refers to the fact that judicial cooperation takes place afterwards, in other words, it is not preventive. The second is linked to the judicial reorganization court's indication that the asset is essential. It was also possible to infer, with regard to the material element, that the legal rule under study limited the manifestation of the reorganization court to the act of substitution, even though this has a universal character in relation to executive courts. In this regard, it was also noted that the Reserved Chambers of the São Paulo Court of Justice also adopt sub-analysis criteria for promoting cooperation, which include (i) specifically demonstrating that the restriction would constitute an obstacle to preserving the business activity of the debtor in judicial reorganization and (ii) indicating another asset so that the substitution can be made.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
cooperação judiciária , recuperação judicial , execução fiscal , atos de constrição , judicial cooperation , judicial reorganization , tax enforcement , acts of judicial constriction