DIA #01 - MARATONA MPSP | PROCESSO CIVIL E DIREITO EMPRESARIAL

Hello my friends and my friends from G7 Jurídico, a big hug to all of you, we are live with another event for you here, made with great affection, which is our Maratona MP São Paulo. We will have the MP test on Sunday, we know it is a very competitive test, a very difficult test, right?

but we are here to help them. We will have the class on Saturday, the evening class, this will not eliminate the evening class, it is important to make this very clear to you, we will also have the evening class, but the MP Marathon has the following function: we know that there are some topics that are recurring in the São Paulo MP test, they are those topics that we know for sure that at least one issue will fall. And then,

by statistics and everything else, right? But then what happens? We decided to bring you here, with depth, these recurring themes in the MPD São Paulo. So, we will have today civil and business process,

And the teachers will bring, and I will bring for example, failure, I will talk about failure, we know that there is always a little question of failure in the MP test in São Paulo and it makes a lot of sense, of course. So we will deal with a lot of failure here, and the same thing with the other disciplines.

criminal criminal civil civil process administrative and everything else is good we will have Zeca too so it will be a very nice marathon that is very worth you participating we will have this today on Tuesday on Wednesday and Thursday ok and then Friday you will take a look at this content do a little review

take a break, rest because later on Saturday at 8 am we are firm and strong there with the vest bringing everything for you you will need for the Sunday test there, okay so let's go guys I won't miss it anymore I want to welcome those who are there for the first time our channel is very welcome very welcome I ask you to do your

our channel, right, that you can register there on our YouTube channel and if you are enjoying our material, our content here, I ask you to like it there in this class with the people from tomorrow today, right, and the invitation for you is already tomorrow, we have the SAGE legal update week today was brilliant the SAGE for Mr. Kleber Masson with criminal law talking about a lot of news from last semester

We had the Consumer Rights, it was fantastic the exposition of Lando, it's worth checking out our YouTube channel. And then, Legal Update Week. Tomorrow, we'll have it tomorrow morning, also from 8:00 am, it will be Civil, Constitutional and Electoral Law, which is also important for the MP's trial. So come here tomorrow, Legal Update Week.

good guys we're going to start our Maratona MP here I'm going to call Professor Fernando Gajardino to be with us, right? And when Gaj enter there I want to ask him a question, right? That he was cheering for the Brazilian team, Gaj likes the team as well as the other teachers we even had a ball here,

But the question I want to ask you, Gaja, is the following: Can you put Gaja on the screen, Rodrigo? Divide the screen with him. I want to know from you, Gaja, if you think Corinthians

would have a better performance than the national team. Yes, my friend Jaluca, it wasn't easy, we suffered with this national team. But I'll tell you one thing, if Corinthians played with the national team, with the Brazilian national team, the Corinthians team, I'm sure that at least from Norway we would have passed. But then I can't guarantee.

but I think it would be more beautiful because of the team's interweaving. But be patient, 2030 is already coming and until then we prepare this team to bring the caneco in the next cup, okay?

Let's talk about what matters? We're going to talk about civil process today. And here, in this public ministry marathon, the proposal is to bring you one or two topics of a certain content, with the goal of, in these one or two topics, to deepen it.

I expect a high-level civil process test in this MP de São Paulo competition because the examiner is the desembargador Fernão Borba Franco Fernão is a desembargador who acts with the public right at the São Paulo TJ and he is a processionalist by hand

full of it. He has a master's degree, a doctorate in civil process law at USP and he's a person I respect too much. So I hope the test is very well done, okay? And what did I separate here to talk to you? I separated two topics, right? These topics are expressly in the editorial, they are there in item 23 and in item 24, which are the topics related to the thing judged and the topic related to provisional compliance with the sentence.

These are the two topics I want to focus on in these 30 minutes I have with you here. So let's start with the issue of the subject related to the "judged thing". Let's quickly remember what the "judged thing" is, from article 502 of the Civil Procedure Code. The "judged thing" represents the qualities of the effects of the sentence.

The sentence has effects, the decision of merit has effects, declaratory effects, constitutional effects, condemnatory effects, and when these effects emanate and the parties do not resort, or the resources are exhausted, two qualities are added to these effects, two authorities, as the Code says. What are they? The immutability and the indisputability.

If you have a decision of merit, passed in court because no one resorted or ran out of resources, the effects of the decision are added to the characteristics or qualities or authorities of immutability and indisputability. And what does immutability and indisputability mean? It means negative effect and positive effect of the thing judged. Negative effect: what was decided, no one moves anymore. It's decided.

It doesn't change what was decided. Negative effect of the thing judged. And positive effect of the thing judged? Positive effect of the thing judged. Everyone is obliged to obey what was decided as if it were law between the parties. Negative effect prevents the discussion, the re-discussion, the reopening of the debate. Positive effect links everyone forward with respect to what was decided.

Let's give an example? Let's go. The individual enters with an action asking to recognize clause 18 of the contract as null. Why? Because there is authorized an adversary, if there is violation of the clause, to charge a fine of 100% of the value of the debt. So the author enters with an action to, before infringing the contract, already recognize the nullities of clause 18. And the judge judges the precedent. No one recourse, transit is unconstitutional.

What does this mean? It means that the negative effect of the case is not going to be able to reopen the discussion about the nullity of clause 18, because it was immutability. And on the other hand, the judges of the future, if they eventually receive a company's claim,

charging the fine of 100% of clause 18, are forced to follow the decision of the judge of the previous case. They are linked, positive effect of the thing judged. Negative effect prevents the discussion, positive effect forces the fulfillment of the thing judged before. So that's it, the thing judged in tight synthesis, okay? But what else do I want you to know about the thing judged? I want you to know that the Brazilian system works with two models of thing judged.

The models of judged things have the same effects. Having judged things generates positive and negative effects, mutability and indisputability. But they are based on different requirements. The first model, which is the classic model, is the thing judged on the main issue. And what does it mean to say that there is something judged on the main issue?

means that what was requested is the request and was decided by the judge, will be reached by the judge. So if I enter with the request for the rescission of the contract and reintegration of custody, paternity investigation and inheritance petition, recognition of stable union and death pension, both requests are made,

If the two requests are judgeable by the same judge, then what the judge decides will be valid for both requests, because the requests formulated on them fall into the court. Note that the requests were expressly made, and if they were expressly decided, they will be covered by immutability and indisputability when they are decided.

right? Now, there is a second model, which is the model of things judged on a prejudicial issue. Sometimes the party does not ask for everything it could ask for, but it asks for only something that, however, is dependent on the previous judgment of a previous issue. And when I have this model, this model of things judged on a prejudicial issue of merit,

Even if the party has not formulated all the requests, the court will not only fall on the request it formulated, but also on that question of merit that was necessary to be faced so that we could eventually have a

the order properly decided, okay? We need to study this second model, which is the model of the matter of merit, the matter of merit, because unlike the first model, which is enough to be in the order for the thing to be judged to be decided, the matter of merit, so that it has the thing judged, we have one, two, three,

four, and for some authors, five requirements. And I need you to understand these five requirements to be able to say in the test to your examiner when there is or when there is not the thing judged on a matter of merit. So, the first requirement: I have to have a matter of merit and what is a matter of merit? The matter of merit is that which, despite not being asked,

Your definition subordinates the judgment of merit of the main request. How does it subordinate the judgment of merit of the main request? Guys, depending on what is decided in the prejudicial question, the main request is decided in one way or another. I usually joke with my graduation students from the University of São Paulo that the prejudicial question of merit is the neck.

If the neck turns to the right, the head goes here, which is the main one. If the neck turns to the left, the head goes there, which is the main one. And it's the same thing here. The question of merit prejudice subordinates the judgment of merit. Let's understand? The individual entered as an action of inheritance petition.

He didn't ask to be recognized as a son, but he wants the inheritance. But the judge, to decide the inheritance petition, first has to see if he is a son or not. So the issue of affiliation is a merit prejudice. Why? Because if it's a son, he has the right to inheritance. If it's not, he doesn't. Even if the party doesn't ask to be recognized as a son.

If the judge has to decide if he is a son or not, to be able to give or not give the inheritance, and filled with the other requirements that we will see in the sequence, the judge will not only fall on what was asked, right or not inheritance, but also on the fact of being a son,

or not to be a child, understood? Another example: I enter with a claim of that fine of clause 18. My request is only the fine of the clause 18, 100% of the obligation value. The judge answers and says: you cannot charge, judge the fine in advance because clause 18 is null.

question of merit. No one of the author, as the main request, asked to recognize the validity or invalidity of clause 18. But before the contestation of the court, a question arose that subordinates the judgment of merit.

If the clause is valid, neck over here, request for a proceeding. If the clause is invalid, request over there, neck over there, request for a proceeding. The issue of merit prejudice subordinates. It is the one that defines where the merit goes. That's why you have to be very careful. Because you can't confuse merit prejudice with preliminary.

The 307 of the CPC says that the judge, before contesting the request, will claim ineptitude, lack of action conditions, lack of procedural assumptions. And if the judge accepts these allegations, he does not judge the merit. He does not appreciate the merit. This is preliminary. Now, if the judge has to face the merit prejudice,

It will not prevent the judgment of merit, but it will say which side the merit will be judged. I enter with an action asking for a lease, which made a rental contract with me. You answer and say: "It's not a lease because you lent me, it's a commodity, so there's no lease."

Look, to decide if there is a eviction or not, the first judge will have to decide if it is a comodato or a eviction. If it is a eviction, there is a eviction. If it is not a eviction, there is no eviction. But the fact that you eventually claim and prove that it is a comodato does not prevent the judge from judging the merit as the preliminary of ineptitude, it does not prevent it.

In fact, it says which side the merit will have to be judged. Do you understand my reasoning? So with these considerations, my dear friends, what do I do? With these considerations, I end the first requirement. Second requirement.

pre-contradictory and effective there will only be things judged on the issue of merit prejudice there will only be things judged on the issue of merit prejudice if by chance if by chance I have what I have an effective debate of the parties about the

da questão prejudicial de mérito vamos tentar entender isso de uma maneira um pouco mais clara né o meu compartilhamento parou eu vou compartilhar de novo podem ficar tranquilo né eu entro com uma ação de petição de herança como eu disse para vocês quando eu entro com a ação de petição de herança como eu disse para vocês que que eu tenho eu tenho

a real that is eventually cited and he can perfectly come and say look you don't have to pay inheritance because my father who passed away is not the father of this guy there so consequently he is not a child notice that from the moment the real contest and says he is not a child I started to have a contradiction about the state of affiliation

Therefore, if the judge decides later if the inheritance is due or not, the case will be ruled not only on the main request, whether or not the inheritance is due, but it will also be ruled on the issue related to the state of the affiliation itself, because there was a previous and effective contradiction on the issue of merit. Now, look how the issue is reversed. I enter with the request for inheritance. My father's heirs do not contest.

Notice that there won't be a pre-election debate on the issue of affiliation. And the judge then decides whether I have the right to inheritance or not.

Will he have to face it if I'm his son or not? He will, but that doesn't make it a judge, because there was no debate from all the people interested in the subject. And in practice, what does that mean? It means that for this process I'm his son and I receive inheritance. But if in the future there is another process, a oversharing, then it can be decided that I'm not his son, because the judgement, the immutability and the indisputability didn't fall,

about the issue of harm. Do you understand the reasoning, my dear? This is very important, to have this pre and effective contradiction. Third requirement: the judge must be competent for all requests, including the issue of harm.

The judge's decision will only exist if the judge who judges the action, the main request, also has absolute competence to decide, as if it were the main request, the prejudicial issue. In the example of the paternity investigation, a case of inheritance. Generally, inheritance is in the family register. And the family register judge decides the inheritance and the paternity investigation. So there's no problem. The guy enters the case and asks for inheritance.

the children of the deceased contest and say: "He is not a child!" And then the prejudicial question arises. And then the judge in the end judges the request in the process and says: "You have the right to inheritance because you are a child." The judged thing will fall both on the main request, "you have the right to inheritance", and on the matter of paternity, because the family custody judge has competence both for the main request and for the prejudicial question. Now look how it changes.

I enter the Federal Court of Justice with an action asking for death penalty. I say that my partner passed away, we lived in a stable union and therefore I am a presumed dependent of her, therefore I have the right to pension for death. The Federal Court of Justice has the competence to judge the cause against the NSS and death penalty, but the Federal Court of Justice has no competence to decide whether or not it is a stable union, because this is a matter of the State Justice.

Note that the federal judge will decide if I am or am not the partner of my late partner. He will have to decide. But he has no competence to decide that by force of judgment. And what is the consequence? The federal judge decides that I am the partner only to give me death penalty. But as there will be no immutability, no indisputability in this part of being or not a partner, nothing prevents that in the future

if they decide that I'm not a partner for other SINs. Do you understand my reasoning? That's how it works. Imagine the following situation: I enter with an action, which is an action to be able to charge a certain debt. The debt based on that clause 18 that requires the payment of the fine.

The judge has no competence to declare nullity of clause, because the clause has its own clause in the judicial system of the state, which says that nullity of contract is only in one clause. When the judge decides that clause 18 is null, he will decide only for the concrete case.

because he has no competence to decide whether or not the contract is annulled, only the claim. So, for this contract, for this claim, I understand the valid clause, but it's not a fair thing. If in the future there is a new action claiming a value relative to clause 18, the judge there can change

the judge can decide differently, right? And he can decide differently because there is no competence of the judge who judges the principal for the prejudicial issue. And in these cases the prejudicial issue is decided without the force of the judge. This is the third requirement. And the fourth and last requirement is the non-existence of probatory or cognitive restrictions. This is a political option. The legislator said that for the judged thing to fall on the prejudicial issue,

it is necessary that the judge has broad cognition and that there is no impediment to the production of evidence. Because if in the procedure you have an impediment to the production of evidence or limited, restricted cognition, I prefer not to do anything judged on the issue for the judiciary. Therefore, the thing judged falls only on the request, the main issue. What is in the middle can be rediscuted again. And where do I have this type of restriction? Security order.

The Security Command can't produce evidence, except for the documental evidence, the pre-constituted evidence. Consequently, the Security Command will never have a case about a criminal case, even if the judge decides that it's a criminal case, a merit case, in the Security Command. The same thing happens in civil special courts. There's a limitation on the production of evidence in Article 38 of Law 9,099, or 35 of Law 9,099,

which is a restriction that the trial in the special trial is an informalized trial. So, since there is a probatory restriction, there cannot be that deep trial, in the trials the judge's decision only falls on the main request. Even if the judge, to judge the main request, has to go through a matter of merit, he will not have the immutability and indisputability about this issue.

friends these are the four requirements of the question of merit prejudice doing things to judge right but part of the doctrine I am one of them understands that there is a fifth requirement for us

In addition, the judge has to say that in the dispositive part of the sentence, in the "posto isso", he has to say that it was judged. So the judge would say: "posto isso, a I recognize the paternity of the deceased in relation to the author and b I judge the precedent of the inheritance petition."

The judge would have to say: "Recognize the nullity of clause 18, which speaks of the fine and, letter B, judge the request for the fine." Because if the judge doesn't do that, he's not deciding in an express and incidental way, as the 503 paragraph says, okay? This is my position and that of other authors, but it's not a majority.

Majoritarian doctrine understands that this last requirement is not expressed in the law, which is a very atypical reading that I am doing here. They understand that as long as there is effective contradiction, that it is a prejudicial issue, that there are no cognitive or probatory restrictions,

so that the case is also based on the issue of the criminal, even if it is not included in the dispositive part. In this example of the fine, the judge would say: "I judge the request for the fine." In the foundation, he would have judged that the fine is null.

as a prejudicial issue. This would be enough to eventually have the prejudicial issue decided with the thing judged, okay? So, guys, basically, about the thing judged, this is the first comment I wanted to make with you. And the second comment is a comment related to the objective limits of the thing judged. It's a comment related to the objective limits of the thing judged.

Friends, what are the objective limits of the case? The objective limits are actually what the judge decides. And what the judge achieves? Exactly what the judge decided in the disposition part of the sentence. What is in the disposition part of the sentence?

in my view, including the issue of the harm, in the view of other authors, the issue of harm would not have to be in the dispositive part, it would be an exception to this rule of the objective limits. What is there and was decided is what will be achieved by the thing judged, okay? But there are two things that I really need you to know about these objective limits of the thing judged. The first thing is what is in this letter A, the principle of deductible and deductible.

which has a forecast in 508 of the Civil Procedure Code and which we call the preclusive efficacy of the thing being judged. The thing is this: when I enter with an action, for example, asking for compensation because they hit my car, I will say that the person hit my car because she acted guilty. Why? Because she was driving in the opposite hand and drunk.

But I could say other things, couldn't I? I could say that she was in the back of her mind, drunk, too fast, moving her phone, that she didn't have a driver's license, that she had a vision problem. All of that I could say to support my thesis that the driver acted with guilt. And the real? The real couldn't defend himself and say, for example, prescription?

And he couldn't claim that the prescription was his fault because he was in excess of speed? He could. But he could claim much more. He could say that I'm the one who can't see anything, that I had the flashlight off, that my car is all broken, that it couldn't be running.

So, what do I want you to notice? The principle of deductible-deductible will basically say the following: that all allegations that can be made in favor of the cause of the request sustained by the author, and all allegations that could be made by the court to sustain its defense cause, all these allegations in the process must be made.

because after the trial is passed, they are considered to be deduced and repealed. It's as if it had been done and they were rejected. All arguments favorable to the author's thesis and the real one. So when I came in with the action saying that you hit my car because you were in reverse gear,

the judge judged it as an imprecision, I can't go in with another action and say that you hit my car because you were drunk and you were without a driver's license. Because in that first action I didn't claim that. And these allegations were necessary to affirm the guilt. And there it was judged as an imprecision. Although I didn't claim it, I can't propose another action with these new allegations. Because all the author's allegations are deduced and repealed within that cause of asking for guilt.

And the judge too. Didn't the judge say that I was the one to blame for the accident? Because there was a prescription and because I was driving the car? Great. That was rejected, the judge judged the action preceding it and asked the judge to pay. The judge can't then come in with an action to discuss the same accident and say that in fact my wallet was sold, that I can't see, that I was in the wrong hand and that I was with the light off. Because all the allegations that the judge could make are deduced and repelled.

to sustain his thesis. Got my point? So, guys, the thing is this: stay connected to this deductible-deductible principle, okay? Just pay attention that it only applies within the same request cause, within the same facts and right of request foundations. If I'm entering with an action to discuss guilt, everything I can claim within guilt is deductible and deductible. Now, if I later enter with another action

saying exception of non-completed contract dollar and in the substantial implementation changed the cause of asking there does not apply the deductible deductible this is the first comment I wanted to make with you and the last comment on the objective limits is that you have to be careful with the judges there from the most recent stf that gave a

A candle of mitigation in this story of judged things and the objective limits of the judged thing. And what are these judged? These are the topics that I'm putting in the material for you here. This topic 881 and 885 of the STF, which has a typical relationship with the tax law, and these two other topics here that are related, which is the 100th of the STF, which has to do with special trials,

And this theme, which is not actually a theme, Steffi invented a way to fix the thesis in a QO order, in a recisory action, 2876, but the Supreme Court has had no traditional interpretations of civil process, it's hard to be a civil process professor with the Supreme Court not applying the CPC when it doesn't want to apply the CPC, but he decided this here too in this QO.

I hope you have written down the number, I hope that you, right after the class is over, have dealt with these issues, at least in the theses. But basically it's like this, let's go back there. What do I want you to know that will fall on your test? First, on the issue number 881885, the STF understood that "tributary" is a continuous legal relationship, and therefore the thing judged only counts

Let's correct this, it's not only valid, it only generates effects until the Supreme has decided in the opposite direction, in an action of control of constitutionality or in a general repercussion. Let's understand, I am a contributor, I have a sentence that says that I do not practice the fact generator X, or that I have the right to a 10% aliquot.

"This year I'm like this, I'm paying 10%, the next year I'm paying 10%, the next year I'm paying 10%..." Several years, because I have something judged that benefits me. One fine day, the Supreme comes and recognizes the unconstitutionality of that interpretation that allowed me to pay 10%.

From the moment the Supreme decided so, my thing judged stops generating effects. And observed the principle of annuality, annual, nine-tenth, depending on the type of tribute, when the period is over, I have to pay the tribute again. Then you will say: "Gerdona, but you have a thing judged in your favor, immutability, indisputability."

Yes, but the Supreme understood that he is supreme and therefore, after he decides that something is unconstitutional, in general repercussion or in abstract control of constitutionality, everything that is judged incompatible with what he decided, stops generating effects. We are in the field of the efficiency of the decision, not the validity. The decision remains valid from the previous thing judged. It doesn't need a recessive.

but they simply stop having effects. So that was the first thing the Supreme Court decided, stay tuned. And the second thing the Supreme Court decided, and it decided this both on the subject without the issue of special trials, as well as in the QO, in R-2876, is that those CPC devices, 525 paragraph 12 to 15, 535 paragraph 5th to 8th, they have to have an interpretation in light of the Federal Constitution.

What does it mean to say that there is an interpretation in the light of the Federal Constitution? They must be aware that after the Supreme Court decided that something is unconstitutional in general repercussion or in action of abstract control, everything that was decided before, even with something judged, and here, attention, it doesn't matter if before or after the Supreme Court's decision,

It's unconstitutional. And so there's a case of unneeded title, which is considered unconstitutional. CPC says the following: if the judge decides something when there was already a Supreme Court decision and no one resists, this thing is considered unconstitutional, because the judge couldn't have decided against what the Supreme Court decided. That's it. But if when the judge decided there was no Supreme Court decision, and this Supreme Court decision happens a few years later,

The case is not unconstitutional. Because when the judge decided, there was no Supreme Court decision. So he didn't disobey the Supreme Court. So in this case, the party should enter into a resuscitation action. That's what the CPC says. The Supreme Court comes and ends it. The Supreme Court says: "No, I am Supreme Court. When I decide, the inefficiency of all titles doesn't matter. If they are constituted before I decide or after I decide. So today, if I, the judge of law, go there and make a decision by asking to pay a subscription to a military policeman,

It doesn't matter if when I made the decision, the Supreme had already said that he couldn't send the subscription to the Military Police. It doesn't matter if when I made this decision, the Supreme hadn't decided, because five years later, he ended up deciding that he couldn't pay the subscription to the Military Police.

Either in one case or another, the executive title becomes unquestionable. And whether in the court where there is no recidivism, or in the common justice where there is even recidivism, the party can cross a mere petition in the courts and say: "Ah, despite having a case, I will not pay because the title is unquestionable, given that the Supreme Court decided that the normative support that gives the basis for this case is no longer in the Brazilian system."

be careful, the limits and objectives of the trial were greatly changed by the Supreme Court in the last five years. In the past, the trial, we said that it made black turn white, white turn black, no more.

and it's worth the black to turn white white to turn black until the Supreme decided to find it because on the day the Supreme decided to find it doesn't matter if the decision of the judge was before or after the Supreme so decided the title becomes unquestionable and that's basically what these themes say the theme being STF and what was decided in the Q O in the R 2876 my

With these considerations, I end the trial and let me take a look here. Unfortunately, I won't have time to talk about my second theme. My second theme was the theme of provisional decision-making, but we do it like this. I leave a little flavor in your mouth.

We'll be together on Saturday, right? In that evening class of the MP of São Paulo. And I, there in the evening class of the MP of São Paulo, will come back to talk to you about this issue of provisional compliance of sentence, okay? So, at this moment, what I want to wish for everyone is a good test. Trust me. And, Ale, I give you back the word for you to give that show that you always give, my friend. A kiss, a hug for everyone. Thanks.

the beans already Thanks congratulations brilliant my friend brilliant once again there a great Monday for you to go already we're together my friend Well let's go then guys let's go and I've already shared here just take the sharing here Opa Opa Opa Opa if you can take it out of sharing there Rodrigo please

there cool good guys let's go now before I start talking to you about the right to business and we're going to talk about bankruptcy with you here many tips I want to give you a lot of people ask how the legal G7 courses work Remembering that you who are doing this marathon MP are four days today Tuesday

Wednesday and Thursday night, right? You can use this coupon MP10, if you use the coupon MP10, you will have 10% discount, in addition to the discount that the G7 website is already giving, okay? Remembering that this coupon will not accumulate with the SAGE coupon, okay? SAGE has a coupon and Maratona MP has another coupon, the MP10 will give you 10% discount,

about any legal G7 course, besides the discounts that are already on the site, okay? Well, a lot of people ask me how the legal G7 courses work. Now I want to share with you on the screen how this G7 course works. So, for example, here we are in MP+, I'll release the screen here. I'll take the sound off, guys, so as not to disturb my speech here, okay?

so look here here is a class of mine in this course MP state-owned a course focused only for those who are wanting state or state-owned magistracy so you have the class you can even look here you can

to speed up the class 25 an email two without any problem and you also have the possibility to slow down I'm very fast many people comment on the person we have to slow down a little bit sir here on the screen but wonderful and notice that in addition to this class what we have, look at this script here I'm going to click here on the script I'll show you

and this is our study schedule guys so we have a notator here in G7 that he notes all the classes and makes the notation of the classes to have so that you have an optimization of your study time you don't have to worry about doing this notation the notator himself is there to make these annotations look at block 1 everything we talked about in block 1 contest questions concepts jurisprudence

Everything we address, the articles of law, the tables we use. So look here, look how much in a business law class here, the tables, the images, everything we use is put in this material for you, so that you have an optimization of your study time, okay?

In addition to this annotation, you will also have access to the slides. So all the slides that are used by the teachers are also available to our students.

I'm downloading here where I am, the internet is not very good, but let's go. Look, look here, these are our slides. Everything the teacher puts in the class is made available for you in these slides too. In addition to having the classes, having the slides, having the study schedule,

and every weekend on Saturdays we also make a simulation, a simulation you don't need to do it on Saturdays you can do it on any day of the year on any day of the week at any time of the week not necessarily here we post the sap ok so I'll put it in the simulation here I'll put it to start here so you come a lot of people say that

improved your performance in the tests with the simulation that you end up having there too, a management of your test time, right? How much time you can lose in each question, this helps a lot, guys. Besides, you will have a notion of seeing how the examiner has been revising those topics that you studied during the week. So I'm going to put it here, look, and I'm going to send the answers.

After you send the answers at the end, there is the number of hits you had there, how was the performance, and there is even a ranking. You can want it or not, you will have the option to authorize or not that your name is put in this ranking. Many people prefer not to put it, others prefer to put it, so you can have an idea of how the people who are having the same classes, having the same content, and have been studying how their performance has been.

So that's basically what we have here in the course, I wanted to show you that you are there with us and that you can be a student of the Juridical G7. Another thing, oops, let me end the sharing, interrupt the sharing, wonderful. Well guys, now I want to talk to you, let me turn up my sound here so I can hear it too now, I want to talk to you

and also about the class, we will have a class this class is super important it will be the Vespa class for the MP test of São Paulo so stay tuned there because there is a lot of cool stuff to talk to you in this class well let's go then let me take a look here is

I ask you who liked our content is can then enjoy this this Live there make your registration our YouTube channel people are asking if material will be available will stay until Saturday ok this Marathon MP material will be available until Saturday Saturday has a class we will take it out of the air and then there will be only the class and the test on Sunday ok

Let's go then, I think I answered this question, which was the most common question here, guys. Well, let's go then, because I want to talk to you about business law, I want to talk to you about bankruptcy, which is a topic that always falls in the MP test, there is a lot of news and I'm sure you will enjoy this content a lot here. So I'm going to put it in share, I'm going to put it here, wonderful.

And then I'll put the display mode and show of balls entered the display mode and not yet let me put the display mode there now yes I think it's now wonderful good guys so let's go

and we will talk about bankruptcy I want to talk about the main points with you about bankruptcy right and the first first situation I want to treat you is the following article second it is clear when saying the following is that this law that the law of bankruptcy does not apply to the public company and to the mixed economy society

And the second paragraph brings the other cases: public-private financial institution, credit cooperative, consortium, health plan operator, insurance company, and so on. I want to first highlight that paragraph 1 is different from paragraph 2. Paragraph 1 brings the cases that we call "totally excluded" and the cases in paragraph 2 are the partially excluded.

Totally excluded means that in any case you will see a failure of a public company or a mixed economy society. In any case. "Ah, but Jaluca, there's a situation that can be different, right?" What different situation? "Ah, and if there is..." I didn't open the correct document. Let me close it again. I'll close this one. I didn't open the correct document.

Rodrigo, can you interrupt me? Let me open it again, just a minute, guys. Who knows, it might be live, so let's go. Now yes, now yes, Maratona MP, cool. Well, so let's go. So, in any case, you will have bankruptcy of public company and mixed economy society.

"Ah, but Jaluca, what if it's that situation in which we are facing a mixed economy society or a public company that performs an activity in competition regime with the private initiative?" And I sincerely think that this question will fall on your test and you have to know the theme of general repercussion, 1101, okay?

And for the STF was the following general repercussion thesis, which is constitutional to article 2 of the law 1101, regarding the inapplicability of the falimentary regime. The falimentary regime is not applied to the public company, to the mixed economy society,

even though it performs activities in competition with private initiative. This will fall into your test due to the emitting public and collective interest in its creation and the need for observation of the principle of parallelism of forms. So don't forget that there is no fault of public company and mixed economy society.

But if we go back to article 2, we have the cases of incision 2, which we call partially excluded. So the public or private financial institution is partially excluded. What does it mean to be partially excluded? It means that, in principle, none of us can ask for bankruptcy from a financial institution.

the financial institution can go through a certain extrajudicial liquidation and that's why we talk about bankruptcy of the BRK bankruptcy of the Banco Santos of the Banco Nacional Porto credit because because before these companies passed these banks went through

liquidation this judicial So what is it saying already what is happening with the Master Bank for example can have a bankruptcy of the Master Bank we can have because the Master Bank for example is already in liquidation this judicial in November 2, 2015 the Central Bank decreed the liquidation of the judicial of the Master Bank, right And then what happens in this liquidation this judicial who when there is liquidation this judicial

What will happen? The liquidator can verify the scenario and only he can ask for the failure of that client. The bank is already in judicial acquittal, passes through this acquittal, the liquidator is appointed and this liquidator can make this request for bankruptcy. Usually, it will require bankruptcy when your asset

is not enough to cover at least half of the value of the credited credits, or even when the evidence of crimes is found to be invalid. So the liquidator makes this request. And that's exactly what fell on the board of the MP 2025,

that the examiner of the IPA of São Paulo asked about the incorrect alternative and the answer is letter D, because letter D says that the request for bankruptcy of financial institution subject to extrajudicial liquidation

competes with the liquidator through authorization from the Central Bank having the competitive legitimacy of the financial institution itself. That's where the mistake is, the letter D is incorrect, because it is only the liquidator who can ask for bankruptcy. The company, the financial institution, does not have this legitimacy to ask for bankruptcy at this time of the extrajudicial liquidation. All right?

Well, moving on. About the objectives of bankruptcy, there is an important subject. Imagine you are doing the NPA test in São Paulo and the examiner puts the following: "One of the objectives of bankruptcy is to promote

and entrepreneurship even by means of making the return of the brain of the entrepreneur I said economic activity you would put as a correct answer I'm sure not this is called fresh start that is we created a very intelligent mechanism today because because people if the company fails if the comrade failed

because he also went through a bitter one for a wise deception of business activity he knows where he missed and from now on he will

a better businessman so let's not bury this talent right don't let it never come back no on the contrary let's encourage it to come back as soon as possible today this great draw of the law of failure so you will see that we have some tips there that we will give during this exhibition that makes this very clear ok

Well, about active legitimacy, who can ask for bankruptcy? Remember that the debtor himself can ask for bankruptcy, it is called self-failure, which is even very common today in business activity. Many companies, who follow my Instagram, and if you don't follow, I think you should follow, at AlexandreGialuca, with two L's, at AlexandreGialuca, with two L's,

I'm always giving you tips, showing you cases of self-defeat. Last week, during the World Cup, I brought several situations for you. So it's perfectly possible for the debtor to ask for his own bankruptcy.

If we are facing an individual business case, the individual has a debt and the comrade is still dying, it is possible to ask for the death penalty of the spouse. Who could ask for the death penalty of the spouse is the spouse, the survivor, any heir to the debtor or the inventor. Also remembering that any creditor can go to death as long as he is a creditor.

As long as you are a believer. It can be an NGO, a retired student, a political party, a church, no problem. Any believer can sue or ask for bankruptcy. Be careful with two things, a slightly older issue of the São Paulo MP.

You have to know that if the creditor who will enter with this request is a businessman, he has to be in regular activity, he has to demonstrate, prove that he is with his regular activities. Those who are not in regular activity cannot ask for the failure of another person.

And finally, if that creditor does not have a home in Brazil, he has to lend a coat. Unfortunately, it is not possible to explain this in the regular course, there is a talk explaining this so you can understand the mechanism, but unfortunately it is not possible. So just keep this information. If the creditor does not have a home in Brazil, he has to lend a coat. Moving on.

I don't doubt that a question like this one may fall, "Can the public farm ask for bankruptcy?" This is a difficult question, ok? A difficult question. Because, in principle, the rule is that it doesn't. The 56th Announcement of the First Journal of Commercial Law, in the same act of jurisprudence, has been understanding that it doesn't, that the public farm has no interest, no possibility or interest in acting

to the failure of the employer, which has the means to seek, to travel, to seek the tax credit, which would be through the so-called fiscal execution. But recently, we already had a decision from TJ de São Paulo, but recently the third group of SCJ understood the possibility of the public farm asking for bankruptcy

she runs out of means of receiving in a tax execution. So first she tries the tax execution, the tax execution is frustrated and with base 94/2 that deals with the frustrated execution, it would be possible to file for bankruptcy.

new topic, I find it a little difficult to formulate the issue, but you have the two positions, the two situations and it is worth taking care of it. Remembering, by the way, that it is a novelty in the law of bankruptcy, Article 73 of the law says that if there is a breach of the tax parcel or of a tax transaction,

the public farm can also ask the judge to convert that judicial recovery to bankruptcy. So it would be an important possibility, but it would be within the judicial recovery. Who is competent to approve a judicial recovery plan or a bankruptcy plan, or even an extrajudicial recovery plan?

the law says that it is the place of the main establishment, right? The main establishment of the debtor. And if the headquarters was outside Brazil, then it was the place of the subsidiary. So remember that, the main establishment of the debtor. There was an interesting case in São Paulo, where the São Paulo MP acted, right?

a failure request in another comarca in the state of Pernambuco. And then, what is the main establishment? It is where there is the largest volume of business, the vital center of activities. So, there is the main establishment and there the failure request must be judged.

Be careful with the detail that Article 6, paragraph 8, talks about prevention, that prevents the jurisdiction. Knowing that a request for judicial recovery prevents the jurisdiction from a failure action, I think everyone would know. The fact is that you have to know that it also prevents the jurisdiction from an extra judicial recovery homologation. So if there is an extra judicial recovery homologation, this will also prevent the judge from the request for bankruptcy.

When does a bankruptcy request fit? We have three situations: 94/1, 94/2 and 94/3. 94/1 is called impunctuality unjustified. It says: "The debtor will be declared bankrupt if, without relevant legal reason, does not pay for the victory of the liquid obligation materialized in the title or executive titles." So, let's go.

left to pay in the victory is being impunctual and without relevant right reason, that is, without justification left to pay without justification a debt is in 94/1 running. Ah, Gianluca, but there is no, how am I going to have a justification to pay? There is, to not pay, of course there is.

I already paid you if you don't charge me again I have to pay now if I let you pay if it's not fair I'm in running 94 you but it's not any debt it has to be a title it has to be in an executive title it doesn't say that it has to be extrajudicial in judicial so it fits executive judicial title and executive title extrajudicial remembering that the value of the debt

to exceed it has to be above 40 minimum wages MP of São Paulo asked if it is possible to disassociate between creditors to overcome this limit positive answer is in the law of bankruptcy itself it is perfectly possible to disassociate between creditors to reach the minimum limit which is above 40 minimum wages

but there is a very important detail to be able to judge the request for bankruptcy in terms 94 zoom is indispensable to protest the title is indispensable occurs that the law of protest when it comes to the protest of the title says that it is enough

of the token of the intimation, it is sufficient to verify that it was delivered in the address provided by the presenter. So, whoever presented the title indicates the address. And the simple proof that it was delivered in the address is enough for the intimation process to be perfected. But since it is a failure, then comes the STJ and brings the Summula 361.

the sumla 361 has already fallen several times in the MP of São Paulo test, it's a typical question, sumla 361, the notification of the protest for the request for bankruptcy of a debtor company requires the identification of the person who received it, so it's not enough just to deliver the address, I have to deliver the address and I have to

demonstrate who received that identify that notification look at São Paulo 2025 that asks considering the majority positioning of the STJ sign the incorrect alternative that is wrong

Letter C: "In the estimation of the protest to subsidize the failure, the identification of the person who received it is required, showing that it is indispensable that it be the legal representative of the legal person." No, the Summula 361 does not require this. "Oh, look, there has to be identification of the person and it is indispensable that it be the legal representative." No, the Summula 361 says: "Look, you need to prove your address, but you also need to identify who received it."

not necessarily that it has to be the legal representative of the legal person, okay? So, the question fell on the MP of São Paulo.

94, part 2, brings the following situation, the so-called frustrated execution. So here the debtor is being executed by any liquid quantity, he is already suffering an execution, but he does not pay, he did not deposit, he did not name the property within the legal term, it is what we call triple omission. It's even here, in the little question here, the letter A. The triple omission. What is the triple omission? It's here, look.

triple omission is this here, look,

did not pay, did not deposit and did not name the property at the time. These are three situations, triple omission: did not pay, did not deposit and did not name the property at the time within the legal deadline. So, based on this, it is possible to ask for bankruptcy. Be careful, that as long as the 94/1 requires that the value is above the minimum conditions, here he is saying: any quantity, any quantity, any value, okay?

Article 94/3 is called "act of bankruptcy". These are situations that are explicitly foreseen in the law, and if the debtor does not practice any of them, there will be a presumption that he is in a state of solvency and a bankruptcy request will be made. I just want you to be careful here with the letter C, which has already fallen a few times in the MP of São Paulo's trial. This issue is a little older, but it has already fallen. So, if I transfer the establishment to a third party, which is a creditor or not,

without the consent of all believers, without having enough assets to solve my passive, then in this case it is a failure. So be careful with that, okay?

also simulate the transfer of your main establishment to bully legislation to bully the inspection or to try to harm the creditor as for example try to avoid a failure action to be judged in the wrong place this would also be a request for talk

Jean-Lucas, tell me something. I received a bankruptcy request, the employer is there, what can he do? He can do some things. He can, first of all, present a contest. Remember that the contestation period is 10 days, it's in 1994, the 1998 CAPT. So the lender will be able to present a contest in the 10-day period. This is a situation.

The other situation is in paragraph 94, 98, which is what we call elusive deposit. So, if the debtor makes this deposit, because the case of bankruptcy is based on the presumption of debtor's insolvency. From the moment he comes and deposits the money, he is saying: "Look, I'm not insolvent, there is no insolvency here." So he eludes this presumption.

That's why the paragraph says: "In the requests based on the incisions 1 and 2 of the Caput of 1994, the debtor will be able, in the term of contestation, to deposit the corresponding value to the total credit." But is that all? No. It's total value, monetary correction, interest and lawyer's fees. So if he makes the full deposit,

Credit, monetary cohesion, interest, honorary and advocacies, put everything together, paid, look what the law says: "hypothesis in which the bankruptcy will not be decreed". The judge will not be able to decree bankruptcy. So, remember what I'm talking about. If there is an elusive deposit, the judge cannot decree bankruptcy. So, the process will continue as if it were an action of charge to identify who the judge of the action has the right to credit

or if the debtor who made that deposit will have the right to raise that money in your favor again because the action was the credit does not exist on the part of the creditor, okay? So that's what will happen. Look at this internal record of special resource, 1,705,939 São Paulo, look here,

"Original Query of the Instrument" "STJ profiles the understanding that the situation is valid by postal route, with the notice of receipt delivered at the same address as the one executed, even if received by third parties, which occurred in the case of the examination."

For the STJ, the theory of appearance prevails, in which several citations and intimations were made in person by those who, if not reserved, identify themselves as representing the company. So, he went there, intimated the protest, intimated the failure action, he says he is a representative, apparently he has powers for that, so there will be no problem with that. And then, it was one of the things that fell on the MP of São Paulo's test. Imagine this here.

hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello hello ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the ap the

and that citation is valid. And finally, in letter D, the elusive deposit made on the request for bankruptcy does not authorize the end of the process, but it is in presumed dissolution, removing the declaration of bankruptcy. It will not close the process, it will remove the bankruptcy, it will not declare bankruptcy, but it will verify who will be the creditor. Okay?

Cool. What can I say in this contest, Jaluca? So many things, false title, prescription, that there is no protest, already paid the debt, annulment of obligation, there is a lot for you to say there. Let's go. Another thing that can happen is the following: sometimes the debtor says like this: "I have to pay interest, interest rates, principal value in money,

and put it all the world that he's in the face you have to do it I'm screwed up I owe it I don't deny it there's a lot of debt there's a lot of that guy can't do it no I do it that we don't have how to put everyone together in a ball just pay everyone in a parcel according to my possibilities can that's why I said so, look, within the contestation period,

the debtor can file for his judicial recovery. He will ask for a judicial recovery within the process of bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process will be suspended for the final decision of judicial recovery. Let's talk about recovery. It is possible, perfectly possible. Be careful! Be careful! This can also be a matter of civil process.

and how are the deadlines in days in the CPC counted are counted in useful days in the failure not running Look at paragraph 189 first word and zoom all deadlines in the forecast that she has the course will be counted in days running process I said it has to be fast it can't take a long time ok day of the river nothing of another useful day running beauty

sentence decree failure if it decrees failure declaratory sentence if it denies failure denigratory sentence what are the resources that are eligible article without the decision that decrees failure is suitable for instrument engraving our Jaluca instrument engraving is declaratory sentence engraving instrument

Why? It won't put an end to the process. The process continues. Then I'll have to name the judicial administrator, the collection of assets, the evaluation, the establishment of credit, the sale of assets, the payment of credit. The bankruptcy only started, it didn't end here. So it's a serious dispute. Now, if the sentence denies, says it's not a case of bankruptcy, then yes, it ended the process and then the appeal is valid.

ok? agreed? MP of São Paulo 2022 civil process code applied to the law of recovery and bankruptcy as long as it is not incompatible with the principles of the law of food then sign the correct alternative look there letter B the sentence that decrees bankruptcy subject to the resource of the aggravated article 100 beauty? look at letter D the sentence that decrees bankruptcy subject to the resource of appeal without expensive effect no no no no no

appeal only to the sentence that denied the request for bankruptcy, the one that decreed the recurrence of the record, okay? Be careful, huh? Look how many questions we have analyzed here. Declaratory sentence, the requirements are in article 99, okay? It's the recipe for the declaratory sentence, it's in 99.

"The patient has written the Debtor's Fault, among other determinations." Be careful that this here, in the second paragraph, he talks about the fixation of the Fault's legal term. What happens? It's in fashion, there's a subject that stays so long, it's from one point to another and comes back with everything. It's in fashion to talk about legal terms. What is the Fault's legal term?

is that suspected period, that period that precedes the request for bankruptcy, in which we will investigate everything. And some acts practiced during this period will be audited, investigated, and if they were those acts of the 129, they will be declared ineffective. So what do we have to know? That the legal term cannot retract, that is, it can go back, it goes back at most 90 days. Counted what? The

or the request for bankruptcy, or the request for judicial recovery, or the first protest due to lack of payment. So if the request for bankruptcy is based on 94-1, which is the justification for the date of the first protest,

the bankruptcy requests based on 94/2, 3, the date of the bankruptcy request. And when am I going to count the request for the recovery of the lawyer? When I have a judicial recovery and it is confirmed, it is converted into a recovery, then I will count the date of the request for judicial recovery. But remember this deadline, 90 days at most, counting from this initial mark. It is interesting that also

In the declaratory sentence, the judge sends the defendant to present a complete relationship of believers on the 5th day under the penalty of disobedience. Don't forget. What else, Lucas? What we have to know here. The MP will be fined here, in the declaratory sentence of bankruptcy. So, in theory, he will only officially participate in the bankruptcy process and then the sentencing. He can appear in the bankruptcy files before, he can, for verification of a fallible crime.

But for the acts of bankruptcy itself, from the declaratory sentence, it is because it is the moment that he will take knowledge of the bankruptcy sentence. Effects on the bankrupt. Be careful, huh?

When the judge decrees bankruptcy, the bankruptcy is not allowed to exercise business activity. This will be in the declaratory sentence, so it is a sentence that extinguishes the obligations of the bankruptcy. So, in this period of time, he is not allowed to exercise business activity. He also loses the availability of his assets. He will not be able to rent, he will not be able to give the fruit, he will not be able to sell, he will not be able to rent. He lost, he lost, he lost, he lost, Playboy.

If you declare bankruptcy, you lose the availability of your assets. Be careful with the 195, because it was already an old issue of the São Paulo MP. If the judge declared bankruptcy and was a public service concessionaire,

the failure automatically extinguishes the concession. So it doesn't depend on the MP's opinion, it doesn't depend on the judicial administrator's opinion, it doesn't depend, it doesn't depend, it's automatic. Declared failure, extinction of the concession of public services. Be careful with the following: when the judge declares the failure of a society, let's imagine that it is a limited society,

"Oh, that means I decredited the failure of the legal person and I will be able to go straight to the partner who said it." "Who failed was the CNPJ, not the partner." "The partners will not suffer the effects of the failure." "Oh, that means then that the partner will not collect the goods?" No, no, it will not. But be careful. Why? Because the law of bankruptcy admits in the process of bankruptcy the disregard for the legal personality.

She admits the lack of consideration of the legal personality. Effects of the declaratory sentence in relation to the believers. First, let's be careful with the anticipated victory. Everyone can participate in the bankruptcy precisely because of this. Why? Because the judge declares bankruptcy and wins in advance all the duties. So today, July 20, the second day of June, right? The day of 2026.

"Oh, but I'm a creditor of a duplicate that will win only in 2030, crazy, in the 2030 World Cup." It doesn't matter. Win in advance and you will be able to enable your credit, because the winning is in advance. Be careful also, be careful with the fact that with bankruptcy, bankruptcy decree, no more interest is issued, okay? No more interest is required. So you have to separate the credit, you can't explain, you can't.

suspension of the cost of the obligation of debtors, you have to know that too, and suspension of the actions of the actions of the judges against the debtor. So, suspend, judge, decree, bankruptcy, suspend, because now everyone will go, I will not pay anymore the execution that is running there in the central forum, nor the one that is there in the business ward, no, no, no, no, everyone comes to the only process, process of bankruptcy, the payment will be made here.

That's why bankruptcy has a so-called attractive visa, universal visa. Attracts to itself all actions and actions because the payment will be made here in bankruptcy. Be careful, huh? The bankruptcy judge is indivisible and competent to know all actions on goods, interests and businesses of the bankrupt. So everything will be here. Unresolved labor, fiscal causes and the one in which the bankrupt appears as an author of active consortium.

brings everything to bankruptcy, everything will be paid here. However, there are some actions that are not brought at the first moment. Worker, why? Because the only one who will be able to judge if they are workers is the judge of labor, the article 114 of the Federal Constitution, he who has the competence to judge. So, as long as he doesn't find the value, he runs there in the work district, then when he pays the loan, he brings it to bankruptcy, right? The execution comes here. The fiscal execution is the same thing, whoever has the competence, the public farm is the only one.

and those actions that I spoke of as an active consortium author. In addition, there are also actions that demand illiquid quantity. Be careful, okay? And be careful with the repetitive theme 976. Look there, what is the thesis signed? "Competence to process and judge liabilities with requests and liquids against the failed mass when in a passive consortium with a legal person of public right

is from the civil court in which the proposal is of knowledge, competent to judge actions against the public farm according to the respective norms of the news organization. Beware that the repetitive 976 theme can also fall into the hands of the São Paulo IP. Jaluca, tell me something. If eventually the promoter verifies that

The judicial administrator is a relative, an intimate friend, an enemy of the socio-administrator. How should he proceed? Look at this here, be careful. We had some interesting cases there, in São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, other states, and this has fallen into the tests. So look at what the law says there.

will be prevented from performing the role of administrator, whoever has a kinship or affinity to the third degree with the debtor, their administrators, controllers or legal representatives, whether they are friends, enemies or dependent.

If the MP identifies this, look at paragraph 2, the MP may require the judge to replace the judicial administrator. So we had some cases where the MP asked for the replacement of the judicial administrator.

about the collection and realization of the asset then the judge decrees bankruptcy the judicial administrator appointed in the declaratory sentence and he will then provide the collection of all the goods that are in the possession of the bankrupt debtor so he does the collection, he does the collection high, he joins the highs and many times it happens that the debtor has goods there that are not of his property so they are third-party property, it is not

the valid one is not the owner of that item so when that happens what the third can do he can ask for a request called request for restitution so look at article 85 for example the owner of the well collected in the bankruptcy process or that is in the power of the debtor on the date of the bankruptcy decree can ask for restitution so request for restitution

The request for extension is an action within the bankruptcy. The request for extension must be based and will write the complaint. Remembering that if it is well returned, the law says that once the sentence recognizes that right, the debtor, the most bankrupt, will have to deliver the thing at the time of 48 hours. But if it is well that it is not money,

Because if it's money, the money will be instituted, but only at the end of the process. Is it worth instituting money? It is, for example, if the thing no longer exists at the time of the request for institution, the hypothesis is that the applicant will receive the value of the asset, or in the case of having collected your sale, the value of the sale. So, it was done by the request for institution, but there is no more asset. The asset deteriorated. So I will get the value of the asset. Or it was already sold, I will get the value of the sale.

Look how interesting, too: the public farm relative to passive tax returns of retention in the source, third discount, subrogation and values received by the tax collectors and public coffers are not collected. What happens? It's the typical case of the INSS. So the company discounts the employee's INSS, but does not pay back to the public farm. That money is not from the company, from the public farm, because it has already made the retention.

So, in these cases, the request for restitution in money is valid. The request for restitution will not be granted. But be careful, because Article 90 says: "From the sentence that judges the request for restitution, the appeal will be valid without any suspension." And that's what fell on the MP of São Paulo in 2022. The justice promoter signed the correct alternative.

Look, the sentence that judges the request for extension is subject to the appeal request with a suspension effect. No, it is appeal request without suspension effect. Okay? Letter C, the sentence that judges the request for extension is subject to the request for compensation. No, sentence that judges the request for extension is appeal request without suspension effect. Don't forget that. This has already fallen by about three or four times in the MP's court in the last ten years, let's say so.

About the inefficiency and revocation of the acts practiced before the failure, be careful, okay? Because the 129 is an orientation that I give you. Take a look at the 129, okay? It's important for you to see the 129. I really like here, I really like it, no, there are two items that you have to be careful of, it's item 4 and item 5.

So, for example, the practice of acts on a free will, since two years before the declaration of bankruptcy, is considered an ineffectual act. So, if the company made a donation in this two-year period, before the declaration of bankruptcy, this act is ineffectual. Now, if it was done in a higher term, five years, then we will have to check, make it better, if it had the intention to defraud the creditor, to prove this better.

but if it is due for two years, it is an ineffectual act. "Renounce inheritance or legacy up to two years before the declaration of bankruptcy." Renounced an inheritance? Nobody is stupid, right? "Fuck inheritance, the guy renounces." Before the declaration of bankruptcy, we will declare ineffectual. But in these cases of 139, I don't need to prove anything. And the judge can even declare ineffectual by office.

that doesn't need proof now taking these cases 29 then it is necessary to enter an action that is called revocatory action including that the MP itself can also and says so article 130 are revocable the acts practiced with the intention of harming creditors proving the fraudulent collusion between the debtor and the third that with him to hire and the effective damage suffered by the mass of the value then when the act occurred outside the two-year period I will have

prove the confluence between the debtor and the third party, I will have to prove that there was an effective damage suffered by the bankrupt mass. In the 2015 MP in São Paulo, the examiner asked the following: "Sign an alternative that describes an act that is subjectively ineffective." What is subjectively effective? That which I have to prove the intention.

So, look, the practice of acts, the gratuitous title, since two years before, is not a subjective act, it is an objective act. I don't need to prove the intention of the debtor. It's there in the law, it happened in two years, the judge declares the law ineffective. The renunciation or inheritance also, within two years,

Now, letter C: the simulation of the judicial separation of the businessman, made with the aim of transferring the property of the former convict to the property of the former convict of the couple's valuable assets. So, the businessman thought that this was a marvellous idea: "I'm going to ask for a divorce because I transfer all the assets to my wife,

I'm suffering action, I'm a nice husband, I don't want to spoil my wife, I left everything to her. If that happens, I go into revocation, but here I will have to prove it, because it is not a hypothesis that is foreseen in law, which I think it should be, but it is not.

So, this is very common. So, if your examiner asks, you already know that it is a case of inefficiency, but subjective. You have to prove the fraudulent collusion, prove the effective loss of the failed mass. How do I do this, Gianluca? Through revocatory action, which is the addition of article 132, which the MP can sue and the term is three years of decreed bankruptcy.

About the realization of the asset, we are already getting close to the end of my participation. And if you are enjoying it, please like it, for God's sake. Help me out there, okay? And about the realization of the asset, what do we have to know? Well, a few things. First of them, you have to know that the value of the sale is not subject to the concept of "priced view".

in the civil process has a price. What is the price in the civil process? 50% or what the judge defines. There are judges who define that it is 60% of the evaluation value. This is the price. It can't be less than that. In bankruptcy, this does not exist. So, for example, in the late week, we finished off a lot of land, the evaluation value of the lot was 1,200,000,

The first auction, 1.2 million, didn't seem interested, went to the second auction for 5.5 million, and made G7. Don't talk about that. But it made competition. Don't talk about this nonsense. What happens if the MP is not entitled to the auction? This is important.

Article 142 paragraph 7 in any modality of alienation the Public Ministry and public farms will be deemed electronic in terms of the current legislation and respecting the respective functional pre-regulations read with me now read with me under the penalty of nullity under the penalty of nullity beauty

Will there be a succession of buyers? The best thing in the world is to buy at a bankruptcy auction that comes clean, with nothing, no gold, with nothing. It comes wonderful.

Look at these two in Article 141: "The object of the leasing will be free of any bonus, and there will be no succession of the arrester in the debt obligations, including the tax nature, the derivatives of the legislation and the work of the accountants." There is no bonus! It's beautiful, it's beautiful, it comes clean! Don't worry about it, because it's the original acquisition of the leasing, it's the original acquisition.

It's not an original derivative. So I'm not going to pay anything, nothing, nothing, nothing. Ah, there's a tax, PTO, damages. Ah, there's a tax, I don't know what, damages. Ah, there's a labor debt that won't pay, won't pay even half. Come on, come clean, come clean, wonderful. But there will be no logical succession, right? If whoever buys it is the failure's partner, the failure's relative, or the failure's orange. Then no one is a fool, right?

ok I can keep four employees can you have to eat here your original will have to do the new contracts work will start from scratch work wallet new want to stay here to hire come on new employees can push the alienation can mp can push the alienation is 143 ok be careful give a look at 143 there just an important detail if whoever is going to push the value

It's just that it's not worth it, right? So, it's better to present a proposal, right? That's the first word, okay? MP of São Paulo 2019. In the order of goods that occurred in the food process, it is observed that the partner of the food company can refund goods in the food process and the goods will be free of any harm. No, that's not the case, right? In principle, there is no succession. Now, if it is the partner of the food company, then this rule is not applied to him, okay?

The presence of the MP is indispensable, on the contrary, it is indispensable under penalty of nullity. Letter C. Employees and employers hired by the remittance will be admitted through new work contracts. Look there. And the remittance does not respond by obligations after the previous contract. Answer OK. Beauty? The object of alienation will be free of any orders and there will be the succession of the remittance. No, there will not be the succession of the remittance. Beauty?

So here, folks, we end our participation here in this great MP Marathon. You will be invited tomorrow to our SAG. Remembering that this discount is only until Friday, which is when the MP Marathon will come out of the air, okay? So be careful there, look.

all courses MP more MP practice courses annual any legal G7 course today is already with discount on the site but using this coupon MP10 you have another 10 percent additional discount I'll show you an example for you to see Rodrigo value there just because I have an idea that we're talking about look guys

and just to have a look I'm talking about as two that the most common ones here what is most sold in the G7 today right then Rodrigo I think you have to increase the screen there or I increased a lot the screen mine here look at the beauty today it's coming out look at 4,319 ok look at the huge discount these things with the passage is for 4,319

If it's the annual, only the intensive 1 plus the intensive 2, it goes to 3.815. Go to another screen.

parceled in credit card MP mais estaduais that is giving you there as a bonus the final straight is not look at the wonderful price that is personal 3484 right divided there in the credit card still gives you the option of post if you want to go to the additional value very much worth this this course there MP mais estaduais especially now that it's with this promotion that's giving you the final straight is not

And for those who are good at the MP de São Paulo test, be careful, the practical course is that one that is focused on the second phase, it's already on discount and it's being sold for R$ 553, it's very worth it for you to take a look there too, okay?

Well guys, give a like in our video, share, take a picture, copy me too, here are my contacts, social networks, I'll put it here in the chat, look for me on Instagram, Alexandre Jaluco, I'm the pedagogical coordinator of G7,

It will be a pleasure to talk to you about the courses, in case you want to know, Jaluca, what is the course that you recommend? I'm starting now, or I'm already seeing the competition course, or I've already done the annual, I'm hitting the threshold, what do you think? You can look me up on social media, it will be a pleasure to talk to you about the G7 Juridical courses.

and I invite you to our morning session, this legal marathon, starting at 8 am. We will have civil, constitutional and electoral process. And tomorrow night we will meet here again with our Marathon MEP. Okay, guys?

Um beijão para vocês aí, obrigado pela audiência de vocês aí, me coloca à disposição e amanhã estamos juntos, tá bom? Não se esqueça do nosso aulão de véspera, que vai ser no sábado também, a partir das 8 horas, horário de Brasília, tá bom? Beijo no coração, valeu pessoal e até a próxima. Tchau, tchau!