Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 6:37:37 GMT
Reform another incentive for the financier is in article -D of the LREF which provides that in the event of judicial recovery being converted into bankruptcy before the full transfer of the amounts by the financier to the debtor the contract will be considered automatically terminated with the exception that the guarantees constituted will be preserved within the limit of the amount actually delivered to the debtor before the decision to convert the recovery into bankruptcy. As can be seen article -D represents an exception to the general rule of article of Law nº according to which “the bilateral contracts cannot be resolved by bankruptcy ” .
Furthermore the provision in article -E regarding possible subjects legitimized to grant DIP Financing stands out. According to the provision anyone can be a financier of the debtor undergoing judicial Phone Number Data recovery including creditors subject to judicial recovery or not family members shareholders or members of the debtor's economic group. Thus the doctrine asserts that the legislation guaranteed ways to increase the number of investors favoring the recovery of the debtor.
Concluding notes
Based on the above the analysis of changes in legislation in parallel with concrete examples indicates that the reform promoted by Law No. in Law No. provided an increase in legal security and economic incentives to potential grantors of DIP Financing . However it cannot be ignored that although less frequently financing was successfully approved even before the reform during judicial recovery.
In general the changes promoted in this matter by Law No. can be considered auspicious since by providing greater comfort to investors they end up bringing a certain hope of enhancing instruments for the upliftment of businesspeople in crisis situations. . It is expected in short that the understanding and dissemination of the appropriate contours of DIP Financing can serve as a driving force for achieving the general objectives of the judicial recovery institute itself in the wake of article of the LREF.
As elucidated for example by AYOUB Luiz Roberto; CAVALLI Cássio Machado. The jurisprudential construction of the judicial recovery of companies digital book. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense .
USC Ch. : “In this chapter – 'debtor in possession' means debtor except when a person that has qualified under section of this title is serving as trustee in the case; …”.
According to Marcelo Barbosa Sacramone “bo the system adopted by Law no. . of the debtor-in-possession DIP after the distribution of the request for judicial recovery and unless the General Assembly of Creditors approves a judicial recovery plan that replaces the debtor this businessman in judicial recovery will remain in the conduct of the activity ” SACRAMONE Marcelo Barbosa. Comments on the Business Recovery and Bankruptcy Law digital book. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva .
For a more detailed view of the obstacles that existed before the reform see DIAS Leonardo Adriano Ribeiro. Financing in judicial recovery and bankruptcy . São Paulo: Quartier Latin p.
Furthermore the provision in article -E regarding possible subjects legitimized to grant DIP Financing stands out. According to the provision anyone can be a financier of the debtor undergoing judicial Phone Number Data recovery including creditors subject to judicial recovery or not family members shareholders or members of the debtor's economic group. Thus the doctrine asserts that the legislation guaranteed ways to increase the number of investors favoring the recovery of the debtor.
Concluding notes
Based on the above the analysis of changes in legislation in parallel with concrete examples indicates that the reform promoted by Law No. in Law No. provided an increase in legal security and economic incentives to potential grantors of DIP Financing . However it cannot be ignored that although less frequently financing was successfully approved even before the reform during judicial recovery.
In general the changes promoted in this matter by Law No. can be considered auspicious since by providing greater comfort to investors they end up bringing a certain hope of enhancing instruments for the upliftment of businesspeople in crisis situations. . It is expected in short that the understanding and dissemination of the appropriate contours of DIP Financing can serve as a driving force for achieving the general objectives of the judicial recovery institute itself in the wake of article of the LREF.
As elucidated for example by AYOUB Luiz Roberto; CAVALLI Cássio Machado. The jurisprudential construction of the judicial recovery of companies digital book. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense .
USC Ch. : “In this chapter – 'debtor in possession' means debtor except when a person that has qualified under section of this title is serving as trustee in the case; …”.
According to Marcelo Barbosa Sacramone “bo the system adopted by Law no. . of the debtor-in-possession DIP after the distribution of the request for judicial recovery and unless the General Assembly of Creditors approves a judicial recovery plan that replaces the debtor this businessman in judicial recovery will remain in the conduct of the activity ” SACRAMONE Marcelo Barbosa. Comments on the Business Recovery and Bankruptcy Law digital book. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva .
For a more detailed view of the obstacles that existed before the reform see DIAS Leonardo Adriano Ribeiro. Financing in judicial recovery and bankruptcy . São Paulo: Quartier Latin p.