A carregar...
Publicação
O novo processo especial de revitalização
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 747.41 KB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
O Direito da Insolvência versa, em geral, sobre a situação do devedor insolvente.
Pelo que, de forma a adequar-se às necessidades sentidas ao longo dos tempos, o regime insolvencial no sistema jurídico português tem sido objecto de inúmeras reformas, que regularam o instituto, podendo falar-se da consagração de três sistemas/fases.
Primeiramente, a concepção de falência assentava na ideia de que a falência opunha
dois sujeitos: os credores, a quem se deveria pagar, e o falido, que se deveria punir. Tais fins eram assegurados pelo processo de falência, que consistia, quase exclusivamente, na liquidação do património do falido, daí ser denominado de “sistema da falência-liquidação”.
Posteriormente, tomando-se consciência da importância de valorizar os outros sujeitos e
interesses envolvidos, nomeadamente o crescimento económico, o emprego e a harmonia social, foram-se concebendo e aperfeiçoando mecanismos de recuperação de empresa, o que levou ao acolhimento da concepção do “sistema da falência-saneamento”.
Tal regime consagrava dois processos especiais aplicáveis aos sujeitos insolventes: o processo de falência e o processo de recuperação de empresas, dando-se prevalência ao segundo, embora a sua aplicação não pudesse ser objecto de aplicação cega ou irrefletida.
Tendo-se, assim, estabelecido como indispensáveis à recuperação, os pressupostos da viabilidade económica e da recuperabilidade financeira.
Com a da entrada em vigor do Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas
(CIRE), em 2004, eliminou-se o primado da recuperação, daí se denominar esta fase como a do
“Retorno ao sistema da falência-liquidação”.
Efectivamente, o CIRE consagrava, na sua versão inicial, como única finalidade a
satisfação dos interesses dos credores, pelo que, a recuperação da empresa insolvente seria somente uma das finalidades do processo de insolvência, em alternativa à liquidação.
Entendendo-se, perante tal, que este Código, na sua versão inicial, consagrava o sistema
da falência-liquidação no seu pleno.
A satisfação dos credores poderia, contudo, ser atingida por uma de duas vias alternativas: a primeira, que constituía a solução supletiva, traduzia-se na liquidação universal do património do devedor com a consequente distribuição do produto obtido pela comunidade de credores; a outra consistia na aprovação de um plano de insolvência e, uma vez homologado, na execução das medidas nele integradas.
Esta filosofia adoptada pelo CIRE num clima de profunda crise económica e financeira
potenciou o aumento elevado dos processos de insolvência, pelo que, no âmbito do programa de auxílio financeiro a Portugal celebrado, em 2011, entre o Estado português, o Fundo Monetário Internacional, a Comissão Europeia e o Banco Central Europeu, de forma a inverter tal situação, o Governo português assumiu, aquando da subscrição do Memorando de Entendimento, o compromisso de alterar o regime português da insolvência.
Em resultado do compromisso assumido, foi aprovado o “Programa Revitalizar”, no
qual, entre as outras medidas que o compõem, se destaca a revisão do Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas e a aprovação do Sistema de Recuperação de Empresas por Via Extrajudicial (SIREVE),
Assim, consequentemente, veio o CIRE a ser objecto de revisão legislativa, operada
pela Lei n.º 16/2012, de 20 de Abril.
O processo de insolvência, resultante das alterações consagradas pela nova Lei,
privilegia novamente a recuperação da empresa em detrimento do seu encerramento. Podendo alcançar-se uma dupla finalidade: satisfação dos direitos dos credores pela forma prevista no plano de insolvência, passando nomeadamente pela recuperação da empresa. Ou nos casos de tal não se revelar possível, liquidação do património do devedor insolvente, e repartição do respectivo produto, resultante da venda dos bens da massa insolvente, por todos os credores que reclamarem os seus créditos.
De facto, através desta alteração, teve o legislador a intenção de rebater a finalidade do sistema da falência-liquidação aclamado pelo CIRE, consagrando-se um novo fim, o da recuperação.
A acrescer, e que na verdade se regista como sendo a maior inovação consagrada pela Lei n.º 16/2012, de 20 de Abril, institui-se o Processo Especial de Revitalização (PER),
vocacionado para a reestruturação do devedor, introduzindo-se um novo capítulo ao CIRE.
Tal processo permite ao devedor com dificuldades económicas, mas que ainda tenha
viabilidade, negociar com os credores por forma a alcançar um acordo que lhe viabilize a sua revitalização, antes de ser declarado judicialmente insolvente.
De facto, tal apresenta-se como sendo a grande novidade do diploma legal, que de
alguma forma veio repristinar o regime que vigorava no anterior Código dos Processos
Especiais de Recuperação de Empresa e de Falência (CPEREF), em que a empresa podia
apresentar-se em juízo para tentar a sua recuperação, num momento anterior à declaração de falência.
Perante as alterações consagradas, passou a considerar-se que, embora igualmente inserido na terceira fase, ou seja, do retorno ao sistema da falência-liquidação, a partir da publicação da Lei n.º 16/2012, de 20 de Abril, tal sistema sofreu uma atenuação na sua aplicação.
Numa primeira observação, são de louvar estas medidas que incentivam à recuperação
num momento em que a generalidade das empresas enfrenta grandes dificuldades. Sendo
igualmente de aplaudir a simplificação de formalidades e de procedimentos.Acontece que, na verdade, apesar de terem sido modificadas as normas onde se faz referência à recuperação, nomeadamente os arts. 1.º e 192.º, a verdade é que tais alterações não
se mostram suficientes para elevar a recuperação como a finalidade prioritária do sistema.
Já quanto ao PER em particular, não se compreende o facto de este apenas poder ser
utilizado por devedores que estejam em situação económica difícil ou em situação de
insolvência iminente, sem que se tenha em conta a sua viabilidade económica.
Ora, o devedor poderá estar em situação de insolvência actual e ter viabilidade económica e produtiva, sendo o PER encarado como uma forma de proceder à sua reestruturação sem recorrer ao processo de insolvência. Do mesmo modo, haverá certamente
situações em que os devedores, que não estejam em insolvência actual, farão uso deste processo somente para retardar a declaração de insolvência, sem que cumpram o requisito da viabilidade económica, não introduziu o novo processo maior defesa ao devedor, apesar de tal de revelar necessário.
Ainda relativamente ao PER, revela-se também questionável o papel crucial que continuam a manter os credores do devedor, continuando a ser deles a decisão de recuperar, ou não, a empresa.
Assim, no global, de forma a converter a filosofia vertida no CIRE, privilegiando-se a
recuperação em detrimento da liquidação, importava alterar nomeadamente a importância e o cariz social do processo, retirar a natureza e tramitação executiva do CIRE que visa apenas a repartição de créditos sem qualquer intervenção do devedor, alterar a forma como a insolvência do devedor pode ser requerida por terceiros, criando-se mecanismos de protecção eficazes para a continuação da empresa no circuito económico, conceber uma instância e tramitação mais perto da recuperação sem que esta corra separada do processo de insolvência e rever a forma de privação do devedor para administrar ou dispor dos bens existentes.
The Insolvency Law verses, in general, the situation of the insolvent debtor. In order to adapt itself to the necessities felt throughout the years, the insolvency regime in the Portuguese law system has been subjected to countless reforms, which have regulated the institute. We can speak of the consecration of three systems/phases. Firstly, the bankruptcy’s conception was based in the idea that the bankruptcy put two individuals in conflict: the creditor, to whom the debt should be paid, and the bankrupt, who should be punished. Those aims were ensured by the bankruptcy proceeding, which consisted almost exclusively of the liquidation of the bankrupt’s assets, thus being called “Bankruptcyliquidation system”. Later, having conscience of the importance of valorising the other subjects and interests involved, namely economic growth, employment and social harmony, mechanisms of company’s recovery were conceived and improved, which led to the adoption of the “Bankruptcy-healing act system”. This regime consecrated two special processes applicable to insolvent individuals: the bankruptcy procedure and the recovery procedure, being the second the most important, although its application couldn’t be blind or inconsiderate. It was therefore established as indispensable to the recovery the presupposition of economic feasibility and financial recoverability. Happens that, with the entry into force of the Insolvency and Business Recovery Code (CIRE), in 2004, the recovery’s primacy was eliminated. For that reason this phase is called “Return to the bankruptcy-liquidation system”. Actually, in its initial version the CIRE consecrated as single aim the satisfaction of the creditor’s interests, whereby the recovery of the insolvent company would merely be one of the goals of the insolvency process, in alternative to the liquidation. Thus, in its original version the Code consecrated thoroughly the system of bankruptcyliquidation. The creditor’s satisfaction could nevertheless be achieved through one of two alternative ways: the first one, which constituted the suppletive solution, was the universal liquidation of the debtor’s assets with the consequent distribution of the proceeds obtained to the creditor’s community; the other one consisted in the approval of an insolvency plan and, when homologated, in the execution of the measures there integrated. The philosophy adopted by the CIRE in a period of economic and financial crises potentiated the great increase of insolvency processes. Therefore, under the program of financial help celebrated in 2011 between the Portuguese State, the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the EuropeanCentral Bank, willing to invert that situation, when the Memorandum of Understanding was subscribed the Portuguese Government made the commitment to alter the Portuguese regime of insolvency. As a result of the compromise assumed, the “Revitalize Program” was approved. Between the several measures foreseen we can highlight the revise of the Insolvency and Business Recovery Code and the approval of the Business Recovery by Extrajudicial Means Scheme (SIREVE). Therefore the Code was subjected to a legislative revise, operated by the Law nº16/2012 of April 12th. The Insolvency Process, which rose from the alterations consecrated by the new law, again privileges the company’s recovery over its closure. That could have a twofold aim: satisfaction of creditors rights as provided for in the insolvency plan, through v.g. the company’s recovery. Where that is not possible, the liquidation of the debtor’s assets and the distribution of the proceeds resulting of the sale of the assets from the insolvency estate to all the creditors who have claimed their credit. In fact, through this amendment the legislator wanted to controvert the aim of the Bankruptcy-liquidation System acclaimed by the CIRE consecrating a new one: the recovery. In addition, which could be seen as the biggest innovation enshrined in the Law nº16/2012 of April 12th, it was instituted the Special Process of Revitalization (PER) devoted to the restructuring of the debtor, introducing a new chapter to the CIRE. This process allows the debtor struggling with financial difficulties but still with feasibility to negotiate with the creditors so that they can reach a deal that permits his revitalization before he is judicially declared insolvent. Given the changes consecrated, it is held, although it also entered the third phase, i.e., the return to the system of bankruptcy-liquidation, after the publication of Law nº 16/2012, of 12th April, that the system suffered mitigation in its application. At a first glance these measures encouraging the recovery at a time where the majority of the companies face great difficulties should be praised. It should also be admired the simplification of formalities and proceedings. Nevertheless, although the norms dealing with recovery were modified, namely articles 1º and 192º, truth is those alterations do not show sufficient to promote recovery to the priority aim of the system. Speaking of the PER in particular, it’s not understandable the fact that this can only be used by debtors who are in a difficult economic situation or in an imminent insolvency situation, without having in mind their economic feasibility. Nevertheless, the debtor may be in a current insolvency situation and have economic and productive feasibility, being the PER seen as a way to its restructuring without appealing to the insolvency process. Likewise, there will certainly be situations where the debtors, who are not currently insolvent, will make use of this process only to defer the declaration of insolvency, without being fulfilled the requirement of economic feasibility. Hence, the new process did not introduce a greater defense to the debtor, although that would be necessary. Still relatively to the PER, it’s also questionable the crucial role that the debtor’s creditors maintain, being their decision to recover, or not, the company. Therefore, in general, in order to convert the philosophy poured in CIRE, benefiting the recovery over the liquidation, it would matter to alter namely the importance and the social nature of the process, to withdraw the executive nature and conduct of the proceedings of the CIRE, which only aims the credits’ distribution without any intervention of the debtor, to alter how the debtor’s insolvency may be claimed by third parties, creating effective protection mechanisms to the survival of the company in the economic circuit, conceiving an instance and proceeding closer to the recovery without the latter to run separately from the insolvency process and revise the way the debtor is deprived of the administration and power to dispose of his assets.
The Insolvency Law verses, in general, the situation of the insolvent debtor. In order to adapt itself to the necessities felt throughout the years, the insolvency regime in the Portuguese law system has been subjected to countless reforms, which have regulated the institute. We can speak of the consecration of three systems/phases. Firstly, the bankruptcy’s conception was based in the idea that the bankruptcy put two individuals in conflict: the creditor, to whom the debt should be paid, and the bankrupt, who should be punished. Those aims were ensured by the bankruptcy proceeding, which consisted almost exclusively of the liquidation of the bankrupt’s assets, thus being called “Bankruptcyliquidation system”. Later, having conscience of the importance of valorising the other subjects and interests involved, namely economic growth, employment and social harmony, mechanisms of company’s recovery were conceived and improved, which led to the adoption of the “Bankruptcy-healing act system”. This regime consecrated two special processes applicable to insolvent individuals: the bankruptcy procedure and the recovery procedure, being the second the most important, although its application couldn’t be blind or inconsiderate. It was therefore established as indispensable to the recovery the presupposition of economic feasibility and financial recoverability. Happens that, with the entry into force of the Insolvency and Business Recovery Code (CIRE), in 2004, the recovery’s primacy was eliminated. For that reason this phase is called “Return to the bankruptcy-liquidation system”. Actually, in its initial version the CIRE consecrated as single aim the satisfaction of the creditor’s interests, whereby the recovery of the insolvent company would merely be one of the goals of the insolvency process, in alternative to the liquidation. Thus, in its original version the Code consecrated thoroughly the system of bankruptcyliquidation. The creditor’s satisfaction could nevertheless be achieved through one of two alternative ways: the first one, which constituted the suppletive solution, was the universal liquidation of the debtor’s assets with the consequent distribution of the proceeds obtained to the creditor’s community; the other one consisted in the approval of an insolvency plan and, when homologated, in the execution of the measures there integrated. The philosophy adopted by the CIRE in a period of economic and financial crises potentiated the great increase of insolvency processes. Therefore, under the program of financial help celebrated in 2011 between the Portuguese State, the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission and the EuropeanCentral Bank, willing to invert that situation, when the Memorandum of Understanding was subscribed the Portuguese Government made the commitment to alter the Portuguese regime of insolvency. As a result of the compromise assumed, the “Revitalize Program” was approved. Between the several measures foreseen we can highlight the revise of the Insolvency and Business Recovery Code and the approval of the Business Recovery by Extrajudicial Means Scheme (SIREVE). Therefore the Code was subjected to a legislative revise, operated by the Law nº16/2012 of April 12th. The Insolvency Process, which rose from the alterations consecrated by the new law, again privileges the company’s recovery over its closure. That could have a twofold aim: satisfaction of creditors rights as provided for in the insolvency plan, through v.g. the company’s recovery. Where that is not possible, the liquidation of the debtor’s assets and the distribution of the proceeds resulting of the sale of the assets from the insolvency estate to all the creditors who have claimed their credit. In fact, through this amendment the legislator wanted to controvert the aim of the Bankruptcy-liquidation System acclaimed by the CIRE consecrating a new one: the recovery. In addition, which could be seen as the biggest innovation enshrined in the Law nº16/2012 of April 12th, it was instituted the Special Process of Revitalization (PER) devoted to the restructuring of the debtor, introducing a new chapter to the CIRE. This process allows the debtor struggling with financial difficulties but still with feasibility to negotiate with the creditors so that they can reach a deal that permits his revitalization before he is judicially declared insolvent. Given the changes consecrated, it is held, although it also entered the third phase, i.e., the return to the system of bankruptcy-liquidation, after the publication of Law nº 16/2012, of 12th April, that the system suffered mitigation in its application. At a first glance these measures encouraging the recovery at a time where the majority of the companies face great difficulties should be praised. It should also be admired the simplification of formalities and proceedings. Nevertheless, although the norms dealing with recovery were modified, namely articles 1º and 192º, truth is those alterations do not show sufficient to promote recovery to the priority aim of the system. Speaking of the PER in particular, it’s not understandable the fact that this can only be used by debtors who are in a difficult economic situation or in an imminent insolvency situation, without having in mind their economic feasibility. Nevertheless, the debtor may be in a current insolvency situation and have economic and productive feasibility, being the PER seen as a way to its restructuring without appealing to the insolvency process. Likewise, there will certainly be situations where the debtors, who are not currently insolvent, will make use of this process only to defer the declaration of insolvency, without being fulfilled the requirement of economic feasibility. Hence, the new process did not introduce a greater defense to the debtor, although that would be necessary. Still relatively to the PER, it’s also questionable the crucial role that the debtor’s creditors maintain, being their decision to recover, or not, the company. Therefore, in general, in order to convert the philosophy poured in CIRE, benefiting the recovery over the liquidation, it would matter to alter namely the importance and the social nature of the process, to withdraw the executive nature and conduct of the proceedings of the CIRE, which only aims the credits’ distribution without any intervention of the debtor, to alter how the debtor’s insolvency may be claimed by third parties, creating effective protection mechanisms to the survival of the company in the economic circuit, conceiving an instance and proceeding closer to the recovery without the latter to run separately from the insolvency process and revise the way the debtor is deprived of the administration and power to dispose of his assets.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Insolvência Código da insolvência Recuperação de empresas Processo de insolvência Teses de mestrado - 2013