Law 11.101, best known as bankruptcy law, which entered into force on February 9, 2005, will complete a decade of existence next year. During the time when it has been the main guiding guardian in the case of bankruptcy and / or judicial recovery in the Brazilian business scenario, it is a cause for concern for scholars and operators of law and, fundamentally, for key stakeholders: entrepreneurs.

Among one of the descriptions of Law 11.101 / 2005, rests the main topic in it: judicial recovery. This, in many cases, figure as the last Savior Hook to ensure the survival of the company's debtor and of whom it reaps its fruits for future projection and projection. Through it, it allows the amendment of contractual provisions even against the yearnings of the part to those who are interested, provided that existing the plurality of creditors under similar circumstances and which agree with the terms suggested by the insolvent.

Muggest for clarification, worth recalling than, in fact, represents this judicial "rescue" today. This action that sometimes omissed in its present purpose, seeks the condition originated by the financial crisis of the company in debt and, in finding it, trying to use the possible legal pathways for its disappearance. Not acting as an insolvent company administrator, in this legal capsule the debtor demands a redoubled care about his dilemma, so he can act to meet the salvation of his company. Not only by the company or by the equity of this, but by the jobs that are generated from its essence and by the commitments it pacts with its consumers (the so-called social function of the company).

in the former bankruptcy law (Decree-Law no. 7.661 / 1945), was lived with the role of the Concordata that, by playing the debtor more slightly that the term "bankruptcy", subsisted the possibility recovery of the affected company. Without a contractual aspect, he had the nature of legal aid, in which lenders was not proportionate the opportunity to manifest his will in the bankruptcy process. In his repealed article 139, it was about compiling concepts, without decreeing the "irreparable" breaking of the entity (in> "Art. 139. The Concordata is preventive or suspensive, as requested in court before or after the declaration of bankruptcy . ").

The Jurist Sérgio Campinho describes exactly this by saying that "The judicial recovery process aims at a single purpose: the approval by the debtor and its creditors of a proposal to enable the company by that hitherto held ".

In this same sense, the current bankruptcy law has, as one of its designs, to guard the financial institutions to recover a larger share of the value that lends to the, then debtors. Unjustably, the law protects the creditor, finding himself viscerally connected to the idea of ​​judicial settlement, helpless the other side.

Finally, it is important to observe the annulatory aspect that contemporary law has brought to the reorganization of the company that goes through economic deficit. Forgot, in the shadow of the desperation of lenders in return whatever the amount invested, the benefit of the reivation of turbulent phase. You should enter the stage, then, the judge. In addition to the other subjects of the judicial recovery process, it is he who must ensure that the debtor is not impelled to settlement by his lenders. However, the magistrate does not, concerning, only, with the process of settlement of the entity, unilateral conduct that removes the investor's interest in the Brazilian market.