Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 0:56:41 GMT -6
The company Ostriz Master cannot replace the current judicial administrators: lawyers Sérgio Crispim and Murilo Macedo Lobo. The decision was made by judge Carlos Luiz Damacena, from the 11th Civil Court of Goiânia. The removal of the administrators was requested jointly by ABPAM — Brazilian Association for the Protection of Ostrich Master Investors, by Acriáguas — Ostrich Breeders Association of the Águas Region and by Acriago — Ostrich Breeders Association of Goiás. The argument was that that the administrators demonstrated a lack of interest in the company's recovery, carrying out acts harmful to its activities and directing it towards bankruptcy. The associations also claimed that the expenses of the judicial administration would be excessive and could unnecessarily burden Ostrich Master.
After receiving the administrators' defense, the judge considered the associations' request untenable. According to the judge, the new Bankruptcy Law (Law 11,101/05) establishes that dismissal is a sanction imposed on the judicial administrator who fails to adequately fulfill his Estonia Email List obligations and should only be applied in cases of disobedience to the law, failure to comply with duties, omission , negligence or practice of harmful acts to the debtor or third parties. “The simple fact that the judicial administration makes public the existence of supposed signs that the debtor's recovery process is unfeasible cannot be interpreted as an act harmful to its activities, nor is it capable of reflecting the administrator's possible interest in the debtor's bankruptcy,” he stated.
The judge also highlighted that it is the judicial administrator's obligation to monitor the transparency of the company's activities under recovery and communicate to creditors and other interested parties the real situation of the company, whatever it may be. “You are still allowed to hire professionals you trust, meaning that external interference, whether from creditors or the company under recovery, is not legal and legitimate,” he stated. According to the decision, the control of judicial administration expenses has been strictly monitored by the court of the 11th Civil Court of Goiânia. The judge also authorized the company to withdraw the amount of R$35,000 to pay for labor legal advice.
After receiving the administrators' defense, the judge considered the associations' request untenable. According to the judge, the new Bankruptcy Law (Law 11,101/05) establishes that dismissal is a sanction imposed on the judicial administrator who fails to adequately fulfill his Estonia Email List obligations and should only be applied in cases of disobedience to the law, failure to comply with duties, omission , negligence or practice of harmful acts to the debtor or third parties. “The simple fact that the judicial administration makes public the existence of supposed signs that the debtor's recovery process is unfeasible cannot be interpreted as an act harmful to its activities, nor is it capable of reflecting the administrator's possible interest in the debtor's bankruptcy,” he stated.
The judge also highlighted that it is the judicial administrator's obligation to monitor the transparency of the company's activities under recovery and communicate to creditors and other interested parties the real situation of the company, whatever it may be. “You are still allowed to hire professionals you trust, meaning that external interference, whether from creditors or the company under recovery, is not legal and legitimate,” he stated. According to the decision, the control of judicial administration expenses has been strictly monitored by the court of the 11th Civil Court of Goiânia. The judge also authorized the company to withdraw the amount of R$35,000 to pay for labor legal advice.