Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 10:13:55 GMT
Miguel Ferreira Tartuce, one of the former directors of Encol, a construction company that went bankrupt in , managed to have his assets released. The decision is from the rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, which followed the divergence inaugurated by Minister Nancy Andrighi.
In , Encol's bankrupt estate filed a precautionary measure to block the assets of the company's former directors, in order to guarantee the payment of compensation to borrowers. The request was granted and, subsequently, the process was divided into volumes, one for each defendant. One of the former directors who had left the company before its bankruptcy had his assets released and Tartuce went to court.
The former director's defense alleged a violation of the -day deadline for implementing the precautionary measure provided for in article of the Code of Civil Procedure. He stated that the precautionary period had already expired Canada Mobile Number List and, therefore, the seizure of the assets would no longer be valid. The Court of Justice of Goiás understood that the period would start counting from the effective seizure of the assets and not from the date of decree of the measure.
According to Minister Nancy Andrighi, the jurisprudence of the STJ considers that the days of article count from the effective date of the injunction. The jurisprudence of the STJ also considers that the precautionary measure takes effect at the time of restriction of the defendant's rights, once the first acts of seizure have been carried out, even if the entire seizure has not been completed.
The minister also noted that the nature of the precautionary measure is temporary and cannot last indefinitely. She also highlighted that the embarrassment for defendants who cannot dispose of their assets would be obvious. For her, the seizure of the assets of defendants would pose clear difficulties due to the volume of work and difficulty in locating such assets.
For the minister, the seizure of assets would not be essential for the knowledge process, and it would not be reasonable to keep all defendants in the same situation. The minister also highlighted that, although the judge noted that the division of the action would only be for educational purposes, in fact, the practical consequence was the application of the prerogative of article , sole paragraph, of the CPC, with the dividing the precautionary measure into as many actions as there were defendants.
In , Encol's bankrupt estate filed a precautionary measure to block the assets of the company's former directors, in order to guarantee the payment of compensation to borrowers. The request was granted and, subsequently, the process was divided into volumes, one for each defendant. One of the former directors who had left the company before its bankruptcy had his assets released and Tartuce went to court.
The former director's defense alleged a violation of the -day deadline for implementing the precautionary measure provided for in article of the Code of Civil Procedure. He stated that the precautionary period had already expired Canada Mobile Number List and, therefore, the seizure of the assets would no longer be valid. The Court of Justice of Goiás understood that the period would start counting from the effective seizure of the assets and not from the date of decree of the measure.
According to Minister Nancy Andrighi, the jurisprudence of the STJ considers that the days of article count from the effective date of the injunction. The jurisprudence of the STJ also considers that the precautionary measure takes effect at the time of restriction of the defendant's rights, once the first acts of seizure have been carried out, even if the entire seizure has not been completed.
The minister also noted that the nature of the precautionary measure is temporary and cannot last indefinitely. She also highlighted that the embarrassment for defendants who cannot dispose of their assets would be obvious. For her, the seizure of the assets of defendants would pose clear difficulties due to the volume of work and difficulty in locating such assets.
For the minister, the seizure of assets would not be essential for the knowledge process, and it would not be reasonable to keep all defendants in the same situation. The minister also highlighted that, although the judge noted that the division of the action would only be for educational purposes, in fact, the practical consequence was the application of the prerogative of article , sole paragraph, of the CPC, with the dividing the precautionary measure into as many actions as there were defendants.