A Valor Econômico report of 7 July 2026 interviewed Arthur Dias da Silva, partner at 3D Assets, on the ruling. Below, what was decided and what we said, in our own words. The full report, in Portuguese, is linked at the end.
In July 2026, the 1st Business Law Chamber of the São Paulo Court of Appeals (TJSP) confirmed the attachment of a percentage of the revenue of a hospital undergoing judicial reorganisation. In the same ruling, it ordered that the judicial administrator be replaced by a "specialised and independent" professional to apply the measure. The decision was reported by Valor Econômico, which interviewed us about the case, and is still subject to appeal. This text is our summary, not the report.
Two points deserve attention.
Attachment of a percentage of revenue is provided for in the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (art. 866): where there are no other attachable assets, or the existing ones are hard to sell, the court may order that a fraction of the debtor's income be directed to the creditor, appointing a depositary who submits a plan and renders accounts. It is a measure that preserves the business: the company keeps operating and pays with what it produces.
Judicial reorganisation stays enforcement of claims subject to the plan, but not all of them. Claims the law leaves outside the proceeding continue to be enforced, and that is where revenue attachment tends to appear as the way out for a creditor who holds an enforceable instrument and finds no assets. The ruling reaffirms that reorganisation is not a shield against this kind of constraint.
The second point is the more interesting one. The judicial administrator is an officer of the reorganisation court: it supervises the debtor, reports to creditors as a body, and answers for the proceeding as a whole. The depositary of a revenue attachment has a different job: making sure the percentage owed to one specific creditor is set aside and delivered, month after month.
Putting both roles in the same hands creates a tension. A judicial administrator who is also the depositary has, on one side, a duty to protect the company's recovery and the creditors as a group and, on the other, a duty to take cash out of that same company for one creditor. That is what we told Valor: there may be a conflict of interest in applying the measure. The chamber resolved the tension by separating the roles and requiring independence and expertise from whoever enforces.
For those acquiring claims against companies in reorganisation, the ruling has two practical effects. The first is to confirm revenue attachment as a viable instrument when assets do not exist or cannot be sold. The second is to signal that enforcing that attachment should rest with someone answerable for the measure, not for the entire reorganisation.
In our feasibility analysis, the existence of attachable revenue and the possibility of an independent depositary enter the calculation before purchase. It is not a detail: it is what determines whether the claim has a path to cash.
The full report, for subscribers and in Portuguese, is on Valor's site: Read on Valor Econômico →
← Back to publications