The premature intervention of the Judiciary in the legal

[mahbubamim077]

Note that the legislator established the granting of judicial recovery by the judge “after the requirements of this Law have been met” (art. 58) in a provision immediately following the provision of “attachment to the records of the plan approved by the general meeting of creditors” (art. 57), making clear the legislative option for deferring judicial control of the legality of the recovery plan until a time after its vote and approval.

Statement 44 of the 1st Commercial Law Conference of the CJF
Along the same lines, Statement 44 of the 1st Commercial bulk sms hong kong Law Conference of the CJF clarifies that it is the “approval” of the recovery plan that is subject to judicial control of legality, and not the mere possibility of submission to a vote.

The impossibility of prior judicial control of the recovery plan can be found in other topics of Law No. 11,101/2005. In fact, there would be no sense in carrying out prior judicial control of an extrajudicial recovery plan, given that Law No. 11,101/2005 itself allows creditors to comment on the plan presented in court (art. 164, caput) – therefore previously approved – so that, only after any objection by creditors, the court exercises its control of legality (art. 164, §5º).

Therefore, Law No. 11,101/2005 regulates the control of the legality of the recovery plan after its approval, not providing for any hypothesis of its prior exercise.