Post by xyz3700 on Feb 27, 2024 9:57:41 GMT
It should be borne in mind that the withdrawal of the appeal constitutes a phenomenon that extinguishes the power to appeal, which makes its assessment and subsequent judgment unfeasible. Such an attitude on the part of the appellant, strictly speaking, implies the "disappearance" of the objection; It is as if any irresignation had never been expressed against the appealable decision-making act! In a significant precedent regarding this issue, the 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, in the judgment of Special Appeal SP, reported by minister João Otávio de Noronha, ruled that: “Judicial recovery aims at the continuity of a company in economic-financial crisis. Its source is the social function of the company, performed by productive activity, seeking to maintain jobs, without disturbing the economic order.
Just as it is lawful for any creditor to file a bankruptcy petition, it is also lawful to withdraw the petition before bankruptcy is declared. , still in the field of judicial recovery, because, while the judicial recovery continues, the prevailing interests are private ones, the property interests of creditors, based on the social interest of the company maintaining itself…”. It is important to highlight an expressive excerpt contained in one of the winning Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List votes, given in that same trial, by minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, textual: "… In effect, it is not a case of judgment under the rite of repetitive appeal Furthermore, even if the nature of public policy of the institute of judicial recovery, this in itself does not determine the need to relativize the party's right to withdraw, under penalty of all matters of a public nature submitted to judgment, involving material or instrumental law, being potentially invoked as justification to mitigate the evident wording of article 501 [current article 998] of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, the argument brought by the leading vote that the interest involved in judging the appeal is not just that of the aggravating party but of the entire community cannot be sustained of the debtor's creditors', precisely because it is an indisputable factual element in the case that the search for the debtor's bankruptcy was an isolated intention, which did not represent the interests of the other creditors…". It should be noted that, in a more recent period, at the beginning of 2018, this same thesis was again supported by the Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice, in the Question of Order in the Motions for Divergence in Special Appeal 1.159.042-PR, raised and reported by minister Napoleão Nunes Maia Filho. This, therefore, is the orientation that prevails in the domains of the Superior Court of Justice.
Just as it is lawful for any creditor to file a bankruptcy petition, it is also lawful to withdraw the petition before bankruptcy is declared. , still in the field of judicial recovery, because, while the judicial recovery continues, the prevailing interests are private ones, the property interests of creditors, based on the social interest of the company maintaining itself…”. It is important to highlight an expressive excerpt contained in one of the winning Chinese Malaysia Phone Number List votes, given in that same trial, by minister Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, textual: "… In effect, it is not a case of judgment under the rite of repetitive appeal Furthermore, even if the nature of public policy of the institute of judicial recovery, this in itself does not determine the need to relativize the party's right to withdraw, under penalty of all matters of a public nature submitted to judgment, involving material or instrumental law, being potentially invoked as justification to mitigate the evident wording of article 501 [current article 998] of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Therefore, the argument brought by the leading vote that the interest involved in judging the appeal is not just that of the aggravating party but of the entire community cannot be sustained of the debtor's creditors', precisely because it is an indisputable factual element in the case that the search for the debtor's bankruptcy was an isolated intention, which did not represent the interests of the other creditors…". It should be noted that, in a more recent period, at the beginning of 2018, this same thesis was again supported by the Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice, in the Question of Order in the Motions for Divergence in Special Appeal 1.159.042-PR, raised and reported by minister Napoleão Nunes Maia Filho. This, therefore, is the orientation that prevails in the domains of the Superior Court of Justice.