Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 4:18:54 GMT
The judicial recovery process, which is at an advanced stage, constitutes one of the concrete hypotheses in which it is justified to maintain the counting of deadlines in working days, and not in calendar days, as per precedent established by the Superior Court of Justice. Based on this understanding, the 1st Chamber of Business Law of the Court of Justice of São Paulo granted the appeal of a group of rural producers, in judicial recovery, who questioned the first degree decision that changed the counting of procedural deadlines from working days to calendar days. In the vote, the rapporteur, judge Alexandre Lazzarini, cited the express statement of the STJ in REsp Min Luis Felipe Salomão in the sense that the deadlines provided for in Law should be counted in calendar days.
However, as the case in question is already at an advanced stage of deliberation on the recovery plan by creditors at a meeting, the rapporteur maintained the counting of deadlines as initially defined by the judge of origin. “Given the rules that have been consolidated in this specific case, there is no way to change, at this moment, after so much time, the previously existing position (working days) to the Middle East Mobile Number List new position (calendar days). Changing the way in which deadlines are counted now means changing the rules, which cannot be accepted, including in light of the principle of legal certainty for everyone involved in the recovery process. It can therefore be concluded that the way of counting deadlines in business days has become irreversible,” he stated. This keeps the count in working days for deadlines such as credit authorization/challenge and those set out in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Only the 90-day extension of the stay period , previously determined by the 1st Chamber itself, will be counted in calendar days. The decision was unanimous.For now, here we will only address the highlighted points and main normative nuances of this new matrix of positive administrative silence. Highlighted aspects of Law on positive silence According to the new normative provisions, two distinct legal regimes are foreseen for public acts of release: (i) in low-risk activities there is not even a need for public acts of release of economic activity; (ii) other activities are subject to a previously stipulated deadline and non-compliance with which implies tacit approval.This is because, without the filing of the tax foreclosure, the taxpayer ends up harmed, as he is prevented from filing debtor embargoes, in order to have the enforceability of the tax credit suspended.
However, as the case in question is already at an advanced stage of deliberation on the recovery plan by creditors at a meeting, the rapporteur maintained the counting of deadlines as initially defined by the judge of origin. “Given the rules that have been consolidated in this specific case, there is no way to change, at this moment, after so much time, the previously existing position (working days) to the Middle East Mobile Number List new position (calendar days). Changing the way in which deadlines are counted now means changing the rules, which cannot be accepted, including in light of the principle of legal certainty for everyone involved in the recovery process. It can therefore be concluded that the way of counting deadlines in business days has become irreversible,” he stated. This keeps the count in working days for deadlines such as credit authorization/challenge and those set out in the Code of Civil Procedure.
Only the 90-day extension of the stay period , previously determined by the 1st Chamber itself, will be counted in calendar days. The decision was unanimous.For now, here we will only address the highlighted points and main normative nuances of this new matrix of positive administrative silence. Highlighted aspects of Law on positive silence According to the new normative provisions, two distinct legal regimes are foreseen for public acts of release: (i) in low-risk activities there is not even a need for public acts of release of economic activity; (ii) other activities are subject to a previously stipulated deadline and non-compliance with which implies tacit approval.This is because, without the filing of the tax foreclosure, the taxpayer ends up harmed, as he is prevented from filing debtor embargoes, in order to have the enforceability of the tax credit suspended.