Dear Clients,
Last week, Valor Econômico reported that, in the first half of 2026 alone, 6,341 new judicial reorganisation petitions were filed across the country — a 6.2% increase over 2025 and an all-time record.
The numbers are striking! But beyond the statistics, the economic indicators and the explanations — some genuinely legitimate, others conveniently formulated once the problem was already in place — there is a reality that stands out to me, especially after the Lojas Americanas reorganisation: that of the thousands of creditors subject to the effects of these proceedings.
Unsecured creditors in particular.
By legal definition, judicial reorganisation is designed as a mechanism for overcoming a company's economic and financial crisis, preserving its productive activity, jobs and the interests of creditors. In practice, however, unsecured creditors often find themselves in an uncomfortable position within that balance: they remain bound to perform contracts, bear operating costs, meet their own payroll and manage their cash flow, while being paid — if and when they are paid — under the new terms imposed by the reorganisation plan.
Last week, we had to inform a client that their claim, duly admitted in a judicial reorganisation, had begun its payment cycle under the terms approved in the plan: an absurd 75% haircut, adjustment capped at the date of the reorganisation petition, and payment in 12 equal, consecutive monthly instalments.
In concrete terms: a R$ 100,000.00 claim was reduced to R$ 25,000.00. This is not an ordinary partial default, a bilateral negotiation, or a contractual revision built between parties with genuinely equal bargaining power. It is a claim which, after going through the admission process and being subjected to the body of creditors, is now settled in monthly instalments of roughly R$ 2,083.33.
The creditor supplied, delivered, invoiced, paid taxes, absorbed the costs of the operation and, in many cases, had already waited a long time for payment even before the reorganisation was filed.
The 75% haircut should not be read in isolation. When combined with a grace period, insufficient adjustment and drawn-out payment, it can represent an economic recovery far below the 25% formally preserved in the plan. In a judicial reorganisation, the headline percentage is only the beginning of the calculation — and it is almost never the most burdensome part of it.
In a survey of approved plans, the Insolvency Observatory (Observatório da Insolvência) found that unsecured creditors faced a haircut in 82.7% of the proceedings analysed. Where a haircut applied, the average was 70.8%, alongside an average payment period of nine years — yes, nine years — plus average interest, where provided for, of 4% per year, with the TR reference rate being the most common adjustment index!
This is the bleak scenario an unsecured creditor in a judicial reorganisation has to face, under the banner of “preserving the company.” Which leaves only one question: preserving which company?
It must be acknowledged that judicial reorganisation is not, in itself, an illegitimate instrument. In certain contexts, it is indispensable to avoid the disorderly liquidation of economically viable businesses. But that does not justify normalising plans that shift the cost of the crisis onto unsecured creditors to an excessive degree, frequently without proportionate guarantees, without effective oversight mechanisms, and on economic terms that make recovery of the claim more symbolic than compensatory.
For that reason, a creditor's involvement should not stop at filing the claim and waiting for the first payment. Technical analysis of the plan, verifying how the claim is classified, attending the general meeting of creditors, identifying unequal treatment between subclasses, monitoring compliance with the obligations assumed, and assessing grounds for challenge or negotiation are all steps that can concretely change a creditor's position in the proceedings.
With judicial reorganisations at a record high, unsecured creditors cannot be treated as a mere adjustment variable in someone else's corporate crisis. Their claims represent assets, liquidity, investment, work and risk taken on. And above all, they should not be reduced to the expectation of a payment that is instalment-based, under-adjusted and deeply discounted, presented as though it were a balanced solution for everyone.
Our firm remains available to review specific cases, monitor reorganisation proceedings and build strategies to protect the interests of unsecured creditors — before, during and after reorganisation plans are approved!!!!
Ricardo Petereit
August 10, 2026
