UDTR Global Rights of Nature Radar

“Agro é pop”: a questão da recuperação judicial do produtor rural individual e seus efeitos sobre as obrigações do devedor. (Agro Is Popular: The Reorganization of Individual Farmers in Brazil (Law 11.101/2005) And Its Reflexes on Submitted Credits)

Identification

Public canonical key

radar:r-32fb245a7b3bb71d39e82e54c82ded52

Authors

Francisco Satiro

Reported year

—

Reported language

English

Source type

publication

First detected

2026-11-13T09:03:03.408627+00:00

Last metadata observation

2026-11-13T09:03:03.408627+00:00

Last HTTP verification

Not checked

Documentary abstract — original language

Portuguese abstract: Ha no Brasil, atualmente, grande debate sobre a possibilidade de empresarios rurais individuais requerem recuperacao judicial imediatamente apos o registro. A STJ permitiu a conduta no Recurso Especial 1.800.032/MT. Mas o fez por maioria de votos e determinando que obrigacoes nao decorrentes da atividade empresarial nao estariam submetidos. No presente texto exploro as razoes pelas quais entendo que o regime especial do produtor rural definidas pelos artigos 970 e 971 dao sustentacao a legitimidade ativa do produtor rural individual para o pedido de recuperacao judicial mesmo que ajuizado pouco depois da sua inscricao no Registro Publico de Empresas mercantis, mas sustento que nesse caso, todos os creditos contra ele, decorrentes ou nao da atividade empresarial - inclusive de natureza familiar - anteriores ou posteriores ao registro, de grande ou pequena monta, submetem-se as regras da Lei 11.101/2005 conforme sua natureza. Isso porque o empresario rural individual exerce a atividade pessoalmente, e o registro nao cria nova pessoa juridica ou sujeito de direito que justificasse uma segregacao ou tratamento diferenciado entre seus debitos. Por fim questiono as razoes pelas quais ha tanto receio na possibilidade de recuperacao judicial por parte dos fornecedores de credito dos produtores rurais individuais. English abstract: There is currently in Brazil a great debate about the possibility of individual rural producers requiring judicial recovery immediately after registration (as rural companies are allowed since 2013). The STJ allowed it in the Special Appeal 1.800.032/MT. But it did so by majority vote and determining that obligations not arising from business activity would not be submitted. In this paper, I explore the reasons why I understand that the special regime of the rural producer defined by articles 970 and 971 of the Civil Code supports the active legitimacy of the individual rural producer for the request for judicial recovery even if filed shortly after its registration in the Public Registry of Commerce, but I maintain that in this case, all credits against him, arising or not from business activity - including family activities - prior or subsequent to registration, of large or small amount, shall be subject to the rules of Law 11.101/2005 according to their nature. This is because the rural entrepreneur carries out the activity personally, and registration does not create a new legal entity that would justify segregation or different treatment between their debts. Finally, I question the reasons why credit providers are so worried about the possibility of judicial reorganization by the of individual rural producers.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2139/ssrn.3675592

Documentary context

Documentary family

unknown

Source-reported types

publication

Publishers

Elsevier BV

Entity mentions are not evidence of legal recognition. Jurisdiction studied is separate from author affiliation country.

Sources

OpenAIRE · Record 1

• Document · https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3675592

Documentary status

Relevance pending

Library

This identity is not yet included in the Legal Library.