Deveres e responsabilidades dos administradores de sociedades anônimas na recuperação judicial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis addresses the duties and responsibilities of directors of companies in judicial recovery concerning their creditors submitted to the recovery process. The duties and responsibilities of administrators in relation to the company are well-studied subjects in corporate law, but less explored in the context of judicial recovery, where administrators remain in control of the company. The research aims to understand whether the duties and responsibilities of administrators change when the company undergoes judicial recovery and what the implications of this change are. The topic is discussed in foreign jurisdictions such as the USA, England, Canada and Portugal. In this thesis, it was concluded that administrators do not owe a duty of loyalty to creditors, but there is a change in the content of the duty of care, so that the interests of creditors are effectively taken into account. Limitations on the powers of administrators during the judicial reorganization process were also identified, in addition to other duties related to information, legality, and equal treatment. The pursuit of compensation by the creditors is also explored. In this area, the situations in which administrators are held personally liable are addressed, along with all the requirements of civil legitimacy, the legitimacy of claims, and the challenges of defining the damage, especially in cases of damage caused by the worsening of the crisis. The research integrates aspects of corporate law, judicial reorganization, and civil liability to provide a comprehensive understanding of the issue
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".