In a recent ruling, the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJSP) reinforced the rights of creditors involved in judicial reorganization proceedings.
The court granted an interlocutory appeal to reinstate the seizure of funds in an enforcement action related to an extraconcursal credit, recognizing that once the 180‑day protection period (the so-called stay period) expires, the reorganization court no longer has jurisdiction to block or condition enforcement measures.
The case originated from an extrajudicial title enforcement, in which approximately BRL 12,706.91 had been seized from the bank account of a company under judicial reorganization. However, the lower court revoked the seizure and ordered the release of the funds, ruling that any new enforcement action would require prior authorization from the reorganization court, based on Article 6, section III, of Law No. 11,101/2005.
The creditor appealed, arguing that the claim had extraconcursal nature, secured by a fiduciary assignment of receivables, and therefore was not subject to the effects of the reorganization proceeding. It further contended that cash funds do not constitute essential capital assets for the company’s operations, meaning that their seizure should not depend on the authorization of the reorganization court.
When examining the appeal, the TJSP emphasized the following points:
1. Limited jurisdiction of the reorganization court: its authority to suspend or interfere with enforcement applies only to the assessment of essential capital assets and only during the stay period;
2. Expiration of the 180‑day period: under Article 6, §4, of Law No. 11,101/2005 (as amended by Law No. 14,112/2020), the court’s competence ceases once the 180‑day stay period ends, preventing it from interfering in executions involving extraconcursal credits;
3. In this particular case, the debtor’s reorganization plan had already been approved in October 2023, meaning the protective period had expired when the seizure took place;
4. Supporting precedent: the Court also mentioned recent Superior Court of Justice (STJ) rulings confirming that, after the stay period ends, the reorganization court cannot prevent the enforcement of extraconcursal credits, with the enforcement court retaining full authority over all seizure proceedings.
With this decision, the TJSP once again underscores the importance of balancing corporate recovery efforts with the enforceability of creditors’ rights regarding claims excluded from the reorganization process. The ruling also aligns with the current understanding of the STJ, reinforcing legal certainty and predictability for the market.
