The second instance of the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice (TJRJ) suspended Oi’s bankruptcy declaration and ordered the resumption of the telecommunications company’s judicial recovery, a process that lasted almost ten years. 
The decision was taken by judge Mônica Maria Costa, from the First Chamber of Private Law of the TJRJ. It responded to requests from creditor banks such as Itaú and Bradesco and reversed the bankruptcy that had been declared by the 7th Business Court of Rio de Janeiro last Monday (10).
You banks maintained that interrupting the company’s operations could generate irrecoverable losses for creditors, customers and employees. They asked for a new opportunity for the company to comply with the approved recovery plan, including the sale of assets capable of generating cash to pay debts.
The judge who analyzed the appeal agreed with the creditors, stating that early and disorderly liquidation would imply an abrupt devaluation of the company’s assets.in addition to causing harm to the public, due to the relevant services provided by Oi.
Costa ordered the reinstatement of the previous judicial administrators and also ordered an investigation into the North American company Pimco, a financial resources manager that ended up taking control of Oi after the execution of expired bonds.
The judge stated that judicial recovery is the means that allows a more “organized and planned liquidation of assets”.
First instance
To declare Oi’s bankruptcy, judge Simone Gastesi Chevrand had pointed out the telecommunications company’s technical and financial insolvency.
According to the judge, the company accumulates debts of approximately R$1.7 billion and has monthly revenue of around R$200 million, with assets considered “empty”. In the decision, the judge stated that “Oi is technically bankrupt” and that it is no longer economically viable to fulfill its obligations.
According to the TJ-RJ, the decision was taken after a statement from the company itself and the judicial intervener, who reported the impossibility of paying the debts and the non-compliance with parts of the recovery plan. The judge highlighted that “there is not the slightest possibility of balancing the company’s assets and liabilities”.
