Esta dissertação tem como objeto a análise da atuação judicial no âmbito dos processos de recuperação judicial de empresas, regulados pela Lei nº 11.101 de 9 de fevereiro de 2002 (\"LRE\"). No primeiro capítulo, são introduzidas as limitações do trabalho e as principais questões a serem respondidas ao longo do texto. No segundo capítulo, são expostos os panoramas histórico e jurídico da LRE, para que se extraiam os verdadeiros objetivos tutelados pela lei e o diálogo destes objetivos com a atuação do Poder Judiciário. No terceiro capítulo, são propostos três níveis de intervenção judicial no bojo do processo de recuperação, sendo eles: (a) o controle de legalidade estrita, por meio do qual o juiz verificará a observância aos requisitos e vedações impostos pela LRE ao conteúdo do plano de recuperação e à sua votação; (b) o controle de legalidade material ou controle de juridicidade, por meio do qual o juiz avaliará se o conteúdo do plano e sua votação atendem aos princípios gerais orientadores do ordenamento brasileiro; e (c) o juízo de viabilidade, por meio do qual o juiz, usando de critérios objetivos sugeridos pela doutrina, avaliaria o mérito do plano de recuperação judicial para averiguar se, além de atenderem aos critérios de legalidade, as disposições do plano de recuperação atingem os objetivos traçados pela LRE, no sentido de tutela da empresa viável e tutela institucional do crédito. No quarto capítulo, são retomadas as conclusões alcançadas ao final de cada um dos subcapítulos. / This study aims at the analysis of the role played by judges in connection to the proceedings of judicial corporate reorganization established under Federal Law No. 11.101, dated February 9, 2002 (\"LRE\"). In the first chapter, the limitations to this study and the main questions to be answered herein are introduced. In the second chapter, the legal and historical backgrounds of LRE are presented. In the third chapter, we propose three (3) different levels of judicial intervention related to the judicial corporate reorganization procedure: (a) the control of strict legality, by means of which the judge will monitor whether the reorganization plan and the deliberation organized for the plan to be voted are in compliance with the requirements and prohibitions imposed by LRE; (b) the control of substantive legality, through which the judge will assess whether the plan\'s content and its voting meet the general principles that govern Brazilian legal system; and (c) a feasibility judgment, by means of which the judge, using some objective criteria suggested by doctrine, evaluates the merits of the judicial reorganization plan to determine whether, the recovery plan provisions reach the goals set by LRE, in the sense of protection of viable companies and institucional credit.

Esta dissertação tem como objeto a análise da atuação judicial no âmbito dos processos de recuperação judicial de empresas, regulados pela Lei nº 11.101 de 9 de fevereiro de 2002 (\"LRE\"). No primeiro capítulo, são introduzidas as limitações do trabalho e as principais questões a serem respondidas ao longo do texto. No segundo capítulo, são expostos os panoramas histórico e jurídico da LRE, para que se extraiam os verdadeiros objetivos tutelados pela lei e o diálogo destes objetivos com a atuação do Poder Judiciário. No terceiro capítulo, são propostos três níveis de intervenção judicial no bojo do processo de recuperação, sendo eles: (a) o controle de legalidade estrita, por meio do qual o juiz verificará a observância aos requisitos e vedações impostos pela LRE ao conteúdo do plano de recuperação e à sua votação; (b) o controle de legalidade material ou controle de juridicidade, por meio do qual o juiz avaliará se o conteúdo do plano e sua votação atendem aos princípios gerais orientadores do ordenamento brasileiro; e (c) o juízo de viabilidade, por meio do qual o juiz, usando de critérios objetivos sugeridos pela doutrina, avaliaria o mérito do plano de recuperação judicial para averiguar se, além de atenderem aos critérios de legalidade, as disposições do plano de recuperação atingem os objetivos traçados pela LRE, no sentido de tutela da empresa viável e tutela institucional do crédito. No quarto capítulo, são retomadas as conclusões alcançadas ao final de cada um dos subcapítulos. / This study aims at the analysis of the role played by judges in connection to the proceedings of judicial corporate reorganization established under Federal Law No. 11.101, dated February 9, 2002 (\"LRE\"). In the first chapter, the limitations to this study and the main questions to be answered herein are introduced. In the second chapter, the legal and historical backgrounds of LRE are presented. In the third chapter, we propose three (3) different levels of judicial intervention related to the judicial corporate reorganization procedure: (a) the control of strict legality, by means of which the judge will monitor whether the reorganization plan and the deliberation organized for the plan to be voted are in compliance with the requirements and prohibitions imposed by LRE; (b) the control of substantive legality, through which the judge will assess whether the plan\'s content and its voting meet the general principles that govern Brazilian legal system; and (c) a feasibility judgment, by means of which the judge, using some objective criteria suggested by doctrine, evaluates the merits of the judicial reorganization plan to determine whether, the recovery plan provisions reach the goals set by LRE, in the sense of protection of viable companies and institucional credit.

Le PLU fixe, dans le respect de la hiérarchie des normes, les règles d’utilisation du sol sur son territoire. Cette hiérarchie est constituée par un ensemble de normes et principes dont le nombre n’a cessé de s’alourdir depuis la décentralisation. Bien que de nature différente, ces normes s’imposent toutes, à quelques exceptions près, de la même façon au PLU. Ce dernier doit être compatible avec leurs dispositions. Cet agencement, apparemment cohérent, dissimule de nombreuses imperfections. Les normes supérieures non moins générales, peuvent aussi s’exprimer dans des termes précis, mixant élasticité et rigidité, précision et imprécision, certitude et incertitude,… Les rapports normatifs, du fait de leur imprécision, transmettent non seulement la validité déterminée par l’ordre supérieur mais aussi les incertitudes affectant ce dernier. Ils n’excluent pas la possibilité d’intensification qui pourrait aboutir à la conformité ni celle d’un affaiblissement aboutissant à une simple prise en compte. Il revient alors au PLU de tempérer ces excès de rigueur ou de mollesse et d’en ressortir des règles intellectuellement accessibles, relativement stables et juridiquement sécurisées. Mais, l'exercice est très délicat et préoccupe les communes qui ne peuvent adopter une interprétation totalement conforme à l’esprit de la norme supérieure sans échapper à la reproduction, au niveau du PLU, de l’ambiguïté qui caractérise cette norme. Il en résulte un PLU difficilement déchiffrable et juridiquement vulnérable puisque ses destinataires, exposés à la difficulté de donner un sens précis à ses règles et de déterminer avec précision celles applicables à un moment donné, ne manquent pas de le contester. Dans ce contexte, le juge s’est vu accordé de nouveaux pouvoirs en vue de tempérer l’impact du contentieux sur la sécurité juridique du PLU. Ainsi, à un encadrement drastique des conditions de recevabilité des recours contre le PLU s’ajoutent des alternatives à son annulation pure et simple. / The Local Urbanism Plan (LUP) set, within the respect of the norms hierarchy, the using rules of the soil on his territory. This hierarchy is constituted by a number of norms and principles which kept growing more and more since it was decentralized. Even though they’re different, these norms are all applicable in the same way to the LUP, with some exceptions. The LUP has to be compatible with their dispositions. This layout apparently coherent hides a high amount of imperfections. Higher norms, but not less generals, can as well be expressed in precise terms, mixing elasticity and rigidity, precision and imprecision, certitude and incertitude. Since nominative reports are not precise, they share in the first place the validity determined by the higher order, but also the incertitude affecting it. They don’t exclude the possibility it will intensify, meaning it could lead to the conformity, and neither have they excluded the weakening leading to a simple take into account. Then the LUP has to deal with these excess of rigor or weakness and to take into account the intellectuals, accessible, relatively stables, and legally secured rules. But this exercise is very tricky and a lot of towns are concerned since they cannot adopt an interpretation totally conform to the spirit of the superior norm without escaping the reproduction of the ambiguity which characterize this norm at the LUP level. As a result, LUPs become hardly decipherable and legally vulnerable since their recipients, which have hard times to give a precise meaning to this rules and characterize with precision which are applicable to a given time, are always ready to contest it. In this context, the judge received new capabilities in order to temper the litigation impact about the LUP legal security. Thus, alternatives to its cancelling are added to the drastic monitoring of the admissibility conditions of the recourse against the LUP.