The bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to determine the destination of a security deposit in a labor lawsuit.

The court responsible for the company's judicial reorganization has jurisdiction to enforce liquidated claims determined in other judicial bodies, including regarding the allocation of appeal deposits made in labor proceedings.

This was the understanding of the Second Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) when deciding, in favor of a bankruptcy court in São Paulo, a conflict of jurisdiction that also involved a labor court in Salvador. The decision was unanimous.

In the case file, the company alleged that its request for judicial reorganization was granted by the São Paulo court, with the determination to suspend all enforcement proceedings against the company. However, after the decision, the labor court in Salvador authorized the release of funds related to a security deposit, on the grounds that this amount was not part of the debtor's assets, since the deposit was made before the reorganization was granted.

The company argued before the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) that the funds belonged to it and, therefore, only the bankruptcy court could decide on their allocation.

Precedent

In her vote, the rapporteur for the conflict, Minister Isabel Gallotti, cited a precedent from the Second Section in the judgment of CC 32.836, in which the panel, by majority vote, decided that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to resolve a request for the release of a procedural deposit made by the bankrupt company, the employer, in the context of a labor lawsuit.

The minister highlighted that, after the enactment of Law 11.101/2005, the decisions issued by the section involving companies in recovery began to follow the same understanding. She recalled that, as provided for in the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), the admissibility of appeals filed in labor lawsuits is conditional upon prior deposit of the amount of the judgment, in gradual limits, according to the filing of appeals, up to a maximum value.

"In the context of Labor Courts, the deposit is a prerequisite for the admissibility of appeals filed against judgments involving monetary awards, serving two purposes: to guarantee enforcement and to prevent dilatory appeals," he stated.

Labor reform

The rapporteur explained that, with the labor reform (Law 13.467/2017), the CLT (Consolidation of Labor Laws) now stipulates that the appeal deposit must be made into an account linked to the court and adjusted using the same indices as savings accounts, instead of being made into an FGTS (Severance Indemnity Fund) account in the worker's name.

Therefore, once the deposit is made, the amount becomes available to the labor court and can be immediately released by court order, right after the judgment becomes final, in favor of the winning party.

However, Isabel Gallotti considered that, "in cases where judicial reorganization is granted to the defendant company during the course of the lawsuit, the credits prior to the request are novated, obligating the debtor and all creditors subject to it, by express provision of article 59 of Law 11.101/2005". The minister added that article 49 of the same law provides that all credits existing on the date of the request are subject to judicial reorganization, even if not yet due.

"The credit sought in the labor lawsuit pending on the date of the request is therefore subject to the effects of the recovery, and must be paid in accordance with the approved plan, under equal conditions with other creditors of the same class," the rapporteur emphasized.

Nature

Isabel Gallotti pointed out that, given that the labor appeal deposit is a guarantee and not an advance payment, the labor court cannot authorize the withdrawal of the amounts deposited by a company undergoing judicial reorganization, with the jurisdiction of the Labor Court limited to determining the respective credit and, after its liquidation, its inclusion in the general list of creditors.

"It is within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to decide on the satisfaction of liquid claims determined in other judicial bodies, otherwise other creditors and the viability of the recovery plan would be jeopardized," said the minister.

In deciding the jurisdictional conflict, the rapporteur recalled that a recent amendment to the law establishing the Labor Reform made it possible to exempt companies undergoing judicial reorganization from the prior deposit requirement and to replace it with a bank guarantee or judicial surety bond.

"The requirement for a security deposit for appeals by companies undergoing judicial reorganization was waived precisely to align with current legislation, which prioritizes the preservation of the productive source, directing its assets towards maintaining the business activity itself," the minister concluded.

Source: Juridical Journal