Source: http://ojs.imodev.org/index.php/IJIL/article/view/225/362
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:49:51+00:00

Document:
by Luiz Eduardo TRINDADE LEITE, Specialist in Tax Law (IBET), Specialist in Corporations and Tributary Planning (INEJ), Director of the Legal Reorganization Department of the Attorneys Institute of Rio Grande do Sul (IARGS), Attorney at Law.
This paper has as its goal to understand and analyze the difficulties faced by corporations to acquire refinancing and investments, during legal reorganization. With focus on bank operations, the conflicts established in the superior courts in surveying the operations commonly formalized by financial institutions, which adds as warranties the so-called “receivables”, to approach the due cares needed in these kinds of contracts.
From this premise, it will be acknowledged the discussion regarding credits whether they must or not be subjected to legal reorganization; therefore, it was observed the approach given by the Courts to the so-called bank locks (travas bancárias).
The new Bankruptcy and Legal Reorganization Act now completes 12 years in times of crises and instability, thus asking for new reflections aiming the social equilibria and legal certainty.
The legal certainty always was regarded as indispensable in the view of the investors and financial institutions that seek tirelessly for the certainty of deals and facts around the risks of the business. By trying to ensure the certainty in its relations, the Law Lei 11.101/05 has brought a very fragile protection and many doubts about the potential investors and financial institutions who believe that the corporation facing financial distress can be restructured. Adding to that, the Resolutions/ Resoluções n°1.559/88 and n° 2.682/99 of the National Monetary Council/ Conselho Monetário Nacional deter in practice the development of the DIP Financing in Brazil.
According to the Act/ Lei 11.101/2005, the legal reorganization has as its goal to make possible the corporation to overcome of the financial-economic distress it faces, in order to avoid bankruptcy. Through this procedure, the corporation could sustain its reputation, the workers employment and the interests of the creditors. “Promoting, therefore the preservation of the corporation, its social function and the incentive to the economic activity” as the predictions of the base-principles of the Legal Reorganization Act, in article 47.
In practice, the fundament of the legal reorganization lies in the constitutional principles of the social function of corporations and the incentives to the economic activity given by articles 170, III and 174 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution.
“It is important not to lose sight that the social function can only be filled if the firm can come back to wealth generation, otherwise it could taint the legal system by giving it an welfare character [...]”.
IV – should not be condemn or not have, as a manager or controller partner, person condemned by any crimes predicted under this Act.
§ 1° The legal reorganization can be required by the living spouse, the debtors heir, the legal successions manager or remaining partner.
“In resemblance to what was demanded by the previous law (art.158.I), this art. 48 begins a list of obstructions to the reorganization claim, excluding from its ward the entrepreneur with less than two years of regular activity, by the rational that it would be not reasonable that in a dead line inferior to that the debtor could put himself in a situation of legal aid to recover”.
“Art. 41. The general-assembly will be composed by the following classes of creditors: I – title-owners of derivatives of labor legislation or labor accidents; II – title-owners of credits with real warranties; III – title-owners of non-covered credits, with special privilege, general privilege or subordinated; IV – title-owners of credits regarded as micro-corporation, or small sized corporations”.
It can be perceived that the referred article has contemplated only those credits that are subjected to the process of Legal Reorganization.
In Brazil, historically, the economy was always leveraged by Financial Institutions, which were always the main investment and foment source to the industrial activity throughout their loans. Along with the evolution of the relations between the Financial Institutions and Corporations, the legislation has evolved as well, mainly to ensure that the institutions may offer credit with lower interest rates through warranties. Therefore, the fiduciary alienation has become the main instrument of warranty for Banks to foment the corporation’s activities with the lowest interest rates due the reduction of the risks through the values of the warranties given.
The fiduciary alienation of corporations real states in banking contracts, are predicted in the Lei 9.514 of 1997 in the caput of article 22. Which conceptualizes the fiduciary alienation as being: “the legal business by which the debtor or the fiduciary as the scope of the warranty contracts the transference to the creditor, or the fiduciary of the soluble property of a real estate”.
It also is featured by the transmission of the resoluble property and the indirect possession of a good either mobile or real estate, as warranty to the payment of a debit, in which the debtor is deterred to negotiate it before the debt resolution, but can enjoy it.
In this case, the debtor alienates himself of the property and gives it to the creditor. The property will only return to him when the debtor fulfill the payment that constitutes the object of the contract, according to GOMES “It is a real right of warranty that confers the creditor the pretension to obtain the payment of the debt with the value applied exclusively to its satisfaction”.
The fiduciary alienation is predicted in Lei 4.728/1965 – art. 66 – (The Equity Capital Market Act - Lei de Mercado de Capitais), in Decree-Law Dec. Lei 911/1969 (Fiduciary Alienation in Mobile Goods), in Lei 9.514/1997 in its article 22 (Fiduciary Alienation in Real Estate Goods) and in Lei 10.931/2004 which included the art. 66-B which in its §3º predicts “the fiduciary alienation of unique things and fiduciary cession of rights about mobile things, as well as credit titles” – as well as the Civil Code in article 1368-A, which states about the other species of fiduciary properties or about the fiduciary ownership.
“Art. 1. The Bank Credit Note is credit title emitted by a natural or legal person, in favor of a financial institution or an entity equal to that, representing a promise of payment in money, due the credit operation of any kind”.
Lei 9.514 of 1997, in its article 22nd and followings institutes this out-of-court procedure for retaking an alienated real estate. In practice the fiduciary alienation or bank lock creates a warranty to the credit supplier, giving to it legal certainty that if the contract may not be fulfilled the supplier will have its losses compensated.
“Are subjected to legal reorganization all credits existent in the claims date, even if not in their term yet.
[...]§ 3° In being a creditor entitled to the position of fiduciary owner of mobile or real estate goods, financial lessor, owner or committed seller of real estate which respective contracts have irrevocability or non-disclaiming, even in real estate incorporations, or owner in selling contract with ownership reserves, its credit will not be submitted to the effects of the legal reorganization and will prevail the rights of ownership of the property about the thing and contractual conditions observed the respective legislation and not being allowed, though, for the deadline of the suspension predicted on § 4° of art. 6º of this Act, the selling or release of the establishment of the debtor of capital goods essential to its corporative activity”.
“The owners of some real warranties or financial positions (fiduciary, leasing, etc.) and the banks that have antecipated ressourced to the exporter due Exchange contracts are excluded from the effects of legal reorganization so they can practice lower interest rated (with spreads casted aside of the risk associated with the legal reorganization), helping the law, therefore, with an environment more feasible to the economic development reboot.
Even with the legal prediction of non-subjection of the credit by the fiduciary agreement, the financial institutions must follow with care all legal demands so the warranty may be fulfilled.
As stated by Luiz Ayoub and Cássio Cavalli, in order to the credit not be subjected to legal reorganization, it is due to the creditor the burden of proof the effective existence of the alienation of the credit “Is it is uncharacterized, the fiduciary agreement of receivable, may eventually be characterized as pledge under the credit rights which is disciplined by art.49,§ 5º, of LRE”.
In the rationale of Walter Fázzio, the prohibition is relative, due, the reorganization plan can alter the conditions of the fulfillment of such contracts predicted by the § 3º of the referred article, “In all these cases, will prevail the emergent rights of such conditions, which are the rights of ownership upon the thing. Of course that the legal reorganization plan can predict other conditions to the fulfillment of the respective contracts”.
Another polemic point about the fiduciary alienation in receivables as credit cards and contracts through an early call of credits through the payment of fees. The jurisprudence has comprehended that the lack of registry, undo the condition of non-binding effects of the legal reorganization.
“Legal reorganization. Fiduciary cession of receivables with future existence. Admissibility. Legal reorganization. Loan with fiduciary warranty of receivables. Contract, though, without registry. Fiduciary property not constituted. Credit subjected to the effects of the reorganization. Appeal denied, revoked the suspensive effect.
Legal reorganization. Fiduciary cession of credits. Necessity of registry. Súmula (Binding Precedent) 60 of this Court. Registry in this case absent. Appealer that limited to contest the value of its credit, as presented by the legal manager, without, though, appoint the alleged error in calculations. Documents attached that are not enough to fundament the value that it has argued to be correct. Decision maintained. Appeal denied”.
Another important factor is that the registry must be done before the legal reorganization, thus, the jurisprudential comprehension does not admit its efficacy if made after the reorganization claim.
“Appeal – Legal Reorganization – Bank Credit Note with fiduciary cession of rights – Fiduciary ownership that constitutes itself through registry of the title in the Titles and Documents Registry – Knowledge of art. 1.361, § 1º, of the Civil Code – Register made in date after the legal reorganization claim – The anticipated liquidation of contracts affects the legal reorganization and the creditor must subject itself to the unwarranted classification of its credit due the inertia in proceeding the registry of its warranties – decision maintained – appeal denied.
“Appeal – Legal Reorganization – Credit impugnation. The credit granted by the fiduciary alienation as warranty. Registry, restricted to the contract of loan. Fiduciary property that constitutes itself only by the registry in the Documents and Titles Registry. Article 1.361, § 1º, of the Civil Code. Registry made after the legal reorganizations claim. Credit that must be included in the class of unwarranted. Súmula nº 60 of E. TJSP. Partially sustained to this end”.
“Art. 49. Are subjected to legal reorganization all the credits existent at the date of the claim, even if nota expired.
“Appeal – Legal Reorganization – Arresting of vehicles. Deadline of 180 days of art. 6º, paragraph 4º of LRF postponed by the courts decision and not yet due. Essentially the vehicles used in the productive unity, which compromises or deter the activity of the debtor. Case of suspension of the arrest and authorization for circulation, avoiding harms to the productivity chain of the appealer. Appealer that cannot sell any good without previous authorization of the M. Reorganizational Judge since it was the inventory of all vehicles deposited in the office, minimizing the risks of patrimonial dissipation. The General Assembly of Creditors already was already made, lacking only the judicial homologation. Appeal granted”.
The legal prediction of not subjection of determined credits in the realm of legal reorganization has been known as “bank-lock” (“travas bancárias”), due the fact of they deter the recuperation of the corporative society “locking” the procedure and due fulfillment of the corporation’s recuperation plan.
Usually, the financial institutions are, in their vast majority, the main creditors of values listed as warranties in paragraphs 3rd, 4th, and 5th of article 49 of Lei 11.101/05. Fact that allowed the doctrine authors and observers to enlarge the concept “locking” pure and simples to the idea of “bank locks” aiming to grant the satisfaction of these credits to which, in theory, usually are the main creditors of corporations in distress, bring that, the financial institutions.
One who defends the “bank locks” justifies the necessity of granting a more tangible and safe warranty to societies and institutions which are responsible for the refinancing of credits in the corporative Market, due the risks of non-compliance. Also states that the “bank locks” are a measure are the legal instrument of locking credits of financial-economic nature most effective in the concession of warranties to the compliance of the contracted obligations of a society in financial distress in the view of fomenters and financing institutions of the country’s corporative activity.
Another strong argument utilized by ones who defend the bank locks is the principle of the compulsory compliance of contracts, or the binding force of conventions, represented by the rule pacta sunt servanda. The evoked principle capsules the idea by which the contract, obeyed the legal requirements, becomes mandatory between the parties, not being able to disconnect from it by other mean that no other bargain, in this sense, the contract constitutes a species of private law between the parties, acquiring binding force equal do the legislative statutes.
Currently, the stance in defense of the “bank locks” is targeted by countless debates among the Brazilian lawyers and courts. One of the main reasons of these discussions lies in the practice adopted by the financial institutions of the repass of high interest rates to the consumers, either natural or legal persons. It is public and well known that even with the warranty that the financial firms obtain against non-compliance in the moment of the concession of credit, the Brazilian bank spread is still considered to be one of the highest of the world market.
The decision made by the first instance was maintained by the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso (Tribunal de Justiça do Mato Grosso), by other arguments, creating a great unsettlement and apprehension in the financial institutions. If it was not enough, the Superior Court of Justice, (Superior Tribunal de Justiça) that already had a position firmed in favor to bank locks in September of 2016, through the trial of the Special Appeal (Recurso Especial) nº 1.532.943 – MT (2015/0116344-4) where the imminent Reporting Judge, Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze, followed by the majority of the 3rd Group of judges of the Superior Court of Justice; let clear that, in the legal reorganization, the approved plan in the general assembly of creditors is valid for everyone, being inferred that it had deterred the bank lock, almost causing a panic among the financial institutions.
“Therefore, considering that: i) the general rule of LREF is that the novation affects only the society’s obligations in the reorganization, with express distinction to the warranties granted to the creditors; ii) that the bankruptcy law allows wide possibilities to the creditor and debtor to negotiate the terms of the plans of legal reorganization, to allow the best arrange of both parties interests; iii) that the clause predicted in the legal reorganization plan which excluded the warranties granted is about the disposable patrimonial rights (renounce of the right to charge the debt from the warrantors), the conclusion that best fits the dichotomy “preservation of the viable corporation x preservation of warranties” is that the clause would be only legitimated and opposable to the creditors which approved the reorganization plan without any distinction claim, therefore, not bring applicable to those not present in the occasion of the general assembly of creditors, have abstained themselves of voting or have manifestly against the disposition in contrary, which is to submit to the plan of reorganization of the creditors that voted against the clause that predicts the exclusion of clauses that excludes, the warranties imposes in a true disrespect to the legal certainty and its consequences, in the measure that a creditor that gives a credit and receives in exchange a warranty, must certainly of a minimum granting that this warranty will be respected, even in the occasion of legal reorganization or bankruptcy in the form predicted by Lei nº 11.101/2005.
“[...] There is no commerce without legal certainty and credit. The credit, by its turn, requires certainty of its receivables. Thus, the more tortious is the process of credit recovering, more it becomes expensive and hard to reach for the entrepreneur. Without the credit, there is no commerce. Without the credit, there is no legal reorganization. What comes out of all of this is that if the entrepreneur has presented the reorganization claim to become with no possibility of credit acquisition it would be more adequate that he claimed the proper bankruptcy and not the reorganization”.
The decision proffered by the Superior Court of Justice has put an end to the uncertainty scenario about the receiving of credit due the warranties weakening, fact that, if confirmed, would be bad News for the economy of the country. Thus, it would generate the raise and retraction in credit concession, the raise in the bank spread, the reduction of wealth circulation the distrust of the investors of both national and foreign capital and being expressively against the spirit of Lei nº 11.101/2005.
The DIP Financing has its origins in the United States of America, where the corporations that are in financial distress usually claim their legal reorganization according to Chapter 11 of Bankruptcy Code to get access to new lines of credit.
Debtor in possession is a modality of refinancing which enables the injection of new Money in the recovering Corporation. Which finds itself in great financial distress and secure the priority investors in the payment regarding the creditors of any other nature.
It is important to result that in this line of credit, debtor-in-possession financing (DIP Financing) the Corporation that claims bankruptcy under Chapter 11 keeps the management and disposition of its goods during the process of reorganization. During the legal procedure of reorganization of corporations, instead to restrict the Corporation in distress credit, the claim opens new ways to acquire new money.
The DIP financing is disciplined by Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code (obtaining credit), which secures to the investors priority in payment regarding the pre-existing creditors; §364. Obtaining credit (a) If the trustee is authorized to operate the business of the debtor under section 721, 1108, 1203, 1204, or 1304 of this title, unless the court orders otherwise, the trustee may obtain unsecured credit and incur unsecured debt in the ordinary course of business allowable under section 503(b)(1) of this title as an administrative expense. (b) The court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the trustee to obtain unsecured credit or to incur unsecured debt other than under subsection (a) of this section, allowable under section 503(b)(1) of this title as an administrative expense.(c) If the trustee is unable to obtain unsecured credit allowable under section 503(b)(1) of this title as an administrative expense, the court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the obtaining of credit or the incurring of debt- (…) (1) with priority over any or all administrative expenses of the kind specified in section 503(b) or 507(b) of this title; (2) secured by a lien on property of the estate that is not otherwise subject to a lien; or (3) secured by a junior lien on property of the estate that is subject to a lien. (d)(1) The court, after notice and a hearing, may authorize the obtaining of credit or the incurring of debt secured by a senior or equal lien on property of the estate that is subject to a lien only if- (A) the trustee is unable to obtain such credit otherwise; and (B) there is adequate protection of the interest of the holder of the lien on the property of the estate on which such senior or equal lien is proposed to be granted.
The procedures rules to the authorization of the DIP can be found in Rule 4001(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“obtaining credit”).
In Brazil, the DIP Financing does not have an own specific regiment in Lei nº 11.101/05 which contemplates only two benefits to one who concedes credits to the debtor. The first it to acquire the classification of scheduled creditor in the event of bankruptcy (art. 67, caput), being that the credit prior to the reorganization claim is under the non-scheduled condition.
It can be observed in practice that both benefits predicted in the article 67 of the Legal Reorganization Act do not stimulate the Market to invest in corporations in situation of financial distress, thus, do not generates a warranty distinctive enough for ones who finance the corporation in this condition.
In the same sense of our understanding, Leonardo Dias adds: “The country’s solution it criticized, thus the benefits are too limited and only operates in bankruptcy, while in legal reorganization no advantage is given by the law to the lander”.
In addition to the absence of legislation that incentive and give certainty to financial institutions foment the credit operations to corporations in legal reorganization, the legislation itself deter the concession of credit to corporations in this situation as the Resolutions/ Resolução 2.682/99 and 2.697/00 of the National Monetary Council. Which determines that financial institutions must classify their credit operations through the risks with “rational and determinable” criteria regarding the debtor, considering: (a)the economic-financial situation, (b)indebtedness rate, (c)results generation capacity, (d)cash flow (e) management and control quality, (f)punctuality and delay in payments, (g)contingencies,(h)field of economic activity, (i) credit limit.
Considering the operation itself, must be observed; (a) the nature and finality of the operation, (b) warranties features (liquidity) and (c) amount at stake. The article 6th of Resolução 2.682/99 determines that the Financial Institutions must provide (through a compulsory deposit) the credits of uncertain liquidation of banks monthly in the perceptual of 100% (one hundred percent) for those who have a non-compliance equal or superior to 180 days. It is certain that corporations in financial distress are, at least, in the mentioned rate of delay.
Adding to that, there is the prediction of “abusive concession of credit” in item IX of Resolução n°1.559/88 which prohibits expressly that financial institution to: “(a) do operations that do not comply with the principles of selectivity, warranty, liquidity and diversification of risks and (b) give credit or addition without the constitution of an adequate title, representing the debt”. The non-compliance of this criteria subject the financial institution to penalties, among them warning, monetary fine, disability to exercise administrative chairs and financial institutions.
If the express prohibitions by NMC were not enough, even if the Financial Institutions could refinance corporations in financial distress, they would have to deal with the interpretations generated by the Brazilian Civil Code. By the simple fact that they have financed corporations in insolvency phase, article 159 determines that “they will be equally annullable the burden contracts of the insolvent debtor, when the insolvency is acknowledged or there if motive to be known by the other contractor”. This interpretation can deepen further while combined with the text of article 163 of the Code “Are assumed as fraudulent of rights of other creditors the warranties of debts that the insolvency debit has been given to another creditor”.
As we have observed, the legal barriers that deter the Financial Institutions to foment corporations in financial distress are many and, only a special legislation and rules that alter the stance of the National Monetary Council, would bring calm and legal certainty needed to the creation of the DIP financing in Brazil.
The lawyers that work in the field of legal reorganization know that in practice; even the goods marked as fiduciary alienation (most of them) have remained under the effects of legal reorganization. Firstly, due their capital goods nature, Essentials to the maintenance of the activity of the Corporation in debt, secondly due the successive and indeterminable prorogation of the “stay period” within the Legal Reorganization Act, which ends up to sustain its effects until the end of the reorganization and not only during the 180 days period.
In short, the financial institutions, while celebrating the exclusion of “fiduciary alienation” credits from the appliance of the Legal Reorganization Act, known as “bank locks”, through the transverse interpretation, oblige themselves to become part of legal reorganizations, without even be part of the creditors list or to have the right to vote.
With the trial of the Special Appeal/ Recurso Especial n° 1.532.943 great part of the lawyers believed that the Superior Court of Justice, with the intention to allow the continuity of economic and employment maintenance have revoked the bank locks. This fact was not confirmed and generated frustration to some, but have maintained the legal certainty needed for the creditors and financial institutions.
It can be concluded that it is important that the rules contained in the paragraph 3rd , 4th, and 5th of article 49 of Lei 11.101/05 must be interpreted according to the principle of the preservation of the entrepreneur society. However, it is reasonable that the applicability of the principle must find an economic-financial equilibrium to guarantee the right of the financial institutions, given that, they are the ones, which foment the economic activity itself, and without warranties, the credit would be certainly scarcer due the lack of legal certainty.
There is no successful Legal Reorganization, without new cash and the source of refinancing is the lung of any Legal Reorganization, though the regulatory limits of Resolução 2.682 of the National Monetary Council deter the resources flow from banks. These rules must change.
Regarding the schedule feature of the new credit predicted in article 67 of the Legal Reorganization Act it is not absolute and does not give any real advantage in the Legal Reorganization to the creditor in practice.
Finally, it can be concluded that the legislation must evolve to institute the DIP financing in Brazil, with clear rules, legal certainty and mainly, giving to this credit a priority level of payment superior to the others, giving to the Financial Institutions that give the credit, the power to intervene in the management of the company to guarantee the success of the reorganization. Thus, the simple injection of capital without a proper planning and a qualified management would not improve the company’s chances of success. If the refinancing is the lung of any Legal Reorganization, a good management is its heart.
 Brazil, Lei n° 11.101 of 9 February of 2005, Diário Oficial da União (DOU) de 09.02.2005, Art. 47. “The legal reorganization has as a goal to make viable the overcoming of the economic-financial distress of the debtor, in order to allow the maintenance of the productive source, the employment of the workers and the creditors interests, promoting, therefore, the preservation of the corporation, its social function and incentives to the economic activity”.
3 Brazil, Constituição Federal, Art. 174. “As normative and regulator of the economic activity’s agent, the State will exercise, in the form of the law, the functions of oversight, incentive and planning, bring this determining for the public sector and indicative to the private sector”.
 F. Coelho, Comentários à Lei de Falências e de recuperação de empresas, São Paulo: Saraiva, 2014, p.158.
 C. Salomão Filho, in F. Souza Junior, A. S. Pitombo (ed.). Comentários à lei de recuperação de empresas e falência – Lei 11.101/2005 – artigo por artigo, São Paulo: RT. 2007, p. 42.
 M. Carvalhosa (ed.), M. J. Bezzera, P. F. de Toledo, M. de Queiros Pereira Calças, A. Pugliese, Recuperação empresarial e falencia, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2016, Coleção tratado de direito empresarial, vol. 5, p. 171.
 R. Sztajn, “Da recuperação judicial”, in F. Souza Junior, S. Pitombo, (ed.). Comentários à Lei de Recuperação de Empresas e Falência, São Paulo: Ed. RT, 2007, p. 221.
 D. Costa (ed.), Comentários Completos à Lei de Recuperação de Empresas e Falências. vol. 1, Curitiba: Juruá Editora, 2015, p. 23.
 R. Sztajn, “Da recuperação judicial”, in F. Souza Junior, S. Pitombo (ed.), Comentários à Lei de Recuperação de Empresas e Falência, São Paulo: RT, 2007, p. 223.
 Brazil, Lei 11.101 of 9 February 2005, Diário Oficial da União (DOU) (Edição extra) 9 February 2005.
 J. Bezerra Filho, M. Justino, Lei de recuperação de empresa e falências, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2104, p. 145.
 S. Campinho, Falência e recuperação de empresa: O novo regime da insolvência empresarial, Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2015, p. 79.
 J. Bezerra Filho, M. Justino, Lei de recuperação de empresa e falências, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2104, p.137.
 F. souza júnior, Autonomia dos credores na aprovação do plano de recuperação judicial. Direito empresarial e outros estudos em homenagem ao Professor José Alexandre Tavares Guerreiro.São Paulo:Quartier Latin, 2013, p. 114.
 O. gomes, H. theodoro junior, Direitos reais, Rio de Janeiro: Revista Forense, 1999.
 Brazil, Lei 10.931 of 2 August 2004, Diário Oficial da União (DOU) 02.08.2004, Art. 66-B. “The contract of fiduciary alienation celebrated in the realm of the financial Market of capitals, as well as in warranty of tributary and retirement system credits, must contain, in addition to the requirements defined in Lei no 10.406, of 10th January 2002 – Código Civil, the interest rates, the punitive clause, the monetary update index, if there is one, and other fees and charges. (Included by Lei 10.931, of 2004). […] § 3o It is admitted as fiduciary alienation of exchangeable thing and fiduciary cession of credits about mobile things, as well as credit titles, hypothesis in which, in the exception of disposition in contrary, the direct or indirect possession of the good object of fiduciary ownership or title representing the right or credit is attributed to the creditor, which in case of non-compliance or delay in the obligation warranted, can sell to the third parties the good object of the fiduciary ownership independently of bid, auction or any other legal or out-of-court measure, which must apply the selling price in the payment of its credit and the expenses generated to fulfill the warranty, returning to the debtor the balance, if there is any, as the receipt of the operation made”.
 See Brazil, Art. 22 of Lei nº 9.514, of 20 November 1997, Diário Oficial da União (DOU) 21 November 1997.
 S. Campinho, Falência e recuperação de empresa: O novo regime da insolvência empresarial, Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2015, p. 407.
 J. Bezerra Filho, M. Justino, Lei de recuperação de empresa e falências, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2104, p. 148.
 M. Carvalhosa (ed.), M. J. Bezzera, P. F. de Toledo, M. de Queiros Pereira Calças, A. Pugliese, Recuperação empresarial e falencia, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2016, Coleção tratado de direito empresarial, vol. 5, p. 187.
 S. Campinho, Falência e recuperação de empresa: O novo regime da insolvência empresarial, Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2015, p. 154.
 F. Coelho, Ulhoa, Comentários à Lei de Falências e de recuperação de empresas, São Paulo: Saraiva, 2014, p.49.
 M. de Queiros Pereira Calças, A Nova Lei de Recuperação de Empresas e Falências: Repercussão no Direito do Trabalho (Lei n. 11.101, of 9 February 2005). Rev. TST, Brasília, vol. 73, nº3, jul/set 2007, p.. 44.
 J. P. Scalzilli, L. F. Spinnelli, R. Tellechea, Recuperação de empresas e falência: teoria e prática na Lei 11.101/2005, 2ª edição atualizada e empliada. São Paulo: Almedina, 2017, p. 308.
 L. R. Ayoub, C. Cavalli, A construção jurisprudencial da recuperação judicial de empresas, Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2013, p. 71.
 W. fázzio júnior, Lei de Falência e recuperação de empresas, São Paulo:Atlas, 2015, p. 136.
 Brazil, TJSP, Agravo de Instrumento n° 2124583-38.2014.8.26.0000. 2ª Câmara Reservada de Direito Empresarial. Des. Rel. Araldo Telles, Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOESP), 30 June 2015.
 Brazil, TJSP, Agravo de Instrumento n° 2038759-77.2015.8.26.0000. 2ª Câmara Reservada de Direito Empresarial. Des. Rel. Ricardo Negrão, Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOESP), 18 June 2015.
 Brazil, TJSP,Agravo de Instrumento n° 2219418-18.2014.8.26.0000. 1ª Câmara Reservada de Direito Empresarial. Des. Rel. Enio Zuliani, Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOESP), 29 April 2015.
 Brazil, TJSP, Agravo de Instrumento n° 0294738-16.2011.8.26.0000. Câmara Reservada à Falência e Recuperação. Des. Rel. Pereira Calças, Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOESP) 3 July 2012.
 L. R. Ayoub, C. Cavalli, A construção jurisprudencial da recuperação judicial de empresas, Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2013, p. 134.
 M. Carvalhosa (ed.), M. J. Bezzera, P. F. de Toledo, M. de Queiros Pereira Calças, A. Pugliese, Recuperação empresarial e falencia, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2016, Coleção tratado de direito empresarial, vol. 5, p.187.
 Brazil, TJSP, Agravo de Instrumento n° 2186310-95.2014.8.26.0000. 1ª Câmara Reservada de Direito Empresarial. Des. Rel. Francisco Loureiro, Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo (DOESP), 11 March 2015.
Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Recurso Especial n° 1.532.943, 3ª Turma, Ministro Relator Marco Aurélio Bellizze, Diário Oficial da União (DOU), 13 September 2016.
 Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Embargos de Declaração em Recurso Especial n° 1.532.943, 3ª Turma ,Diário Oficial da União (DOU) 2 June 2017.
 R. Limiro, Sobre a recuperação judicial e o Resp 1532943/MT, Available at: http://www.migalhas.com.br/dePeso/16,MI262383,91041sobre+a+recuperacao+ judicial+e+o+Resp+1532943+MT+plano+aprovado+em.
 F. Simionato, Tratado de direito falimentar. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2008, p. 201.
 USA. Bankruptcy Code. Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/ban kruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics.
USA. Bankruptcy Basics: Chapter 11. Available at: http://www.uscourts.gov/services -forms/ bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics.
 USA, Bankruptcy Code. Available at: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=gra nuleid:USC-prelim-title11-section364&num=0&edition=prelim.
 USA, Bankruptcy Code. Available at: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?Path=/ prelim@title11/title11a/node2/node4/part4&edition=prelim.
“The credits from obligations contracted by the debtor during the legal reorganization, including those concerning expenditures with suppliers of goods or services and loans, will be considered unscheduled, in case of bankruptcy, respected, in which applies the order established by the article. 83 of this Lei”.
 L. R. Ayoub, C. Cavalli, A construção jurisprudencial da recuperação judicial de empresas, Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2013, p. 81.
 L. R. Ayoub, C. Cavalli, A construção jurisprudencial da recuperação judicial de empresas, Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2013, p. 82.
 F. Coelho, Ulhoa, Comentários à Lei de Falências e de recuperação de empresas, São Paulo: Saraiva, 2014, p. 251.
 J. Bezerra Filho, M. Justino, Lei de recuperação de empresa e falências, São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, p. 190.
 L. A. Dias, Financiamento na Recuperação Judicial e na Falência, São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2014, p. 340.
 Brazil, Banco Central do Brasil. Conselho Monetário Nacional. Resolução nº 2682, of 21 Decenber 1999.
Art. 6º : “The provision to make against credits the doubtful liquidation must be constituted monthly not being inferior to the sum of the appliance of percentages to me mentioned, without harming the liability of managers of the institutions for the constitution of provision in values enough to face the probable losses of the credits realization”.
 Brazil, Banco Central do Brasil. Conselho Monetário Nacional. Resolução n° 1.559/88 of 22 December 1988 (DOU) 22.12.1988 IX – “It is forbidden to the financial institutions: a) to make operations that do not fulfill the principles of selectivity warranty, liquidity and diversification of risks. b) give credit in advance without the constitution of an adequate title representing the debt. (NR) (Content given by the incise IX of Resolução 3258, of 28/01/2005).
 Brazil, Lei 10.406 of 10 Jannuary de 2002, Diário Oficial da União (DOU), 11 January 2002.
“[…] )§ 3º: In bring the case of creditor entitled of the position of fiduciary owner of mobile or real estate goods, mercantile lender, owner or committed seller of real estate which respective contracts have irrevocability and non-waiver clauses including real estate incorporations, or owner in contract of selling with reserve of domain, its credit will not be submitted to the effects of the legal reorganization, and will prevail the property rights under the thing and contractual conditions, observed the respective legislation, not bring allowed, though, during the deadline of suspension which is referred by § 4o of art. 6o of this Lei, the selling or withdraw of establishment from the debtor of goods of capital essential to the corporative activity.
§ 4º It will not be subjected to the effects of legal reorganization the values referred by II of art. 86 of this Lei.

References: § 1
 art. 48
 art. 66
 art. 66
 §3
 § 4
 art. 6
 art.49
 § 3
 art. 1
 § 1
 § 1
 art. 6
 §364
 Art. 47
 Art. 174
 Art. 66
 § 3
 Art. 22

Art. 6
 § 4
 art. 6

§ 4
 art. 86