Restructuring proceedings: a creditor may apply to the judge for access to the documents supporting claims never filed
The Évora Court of Appeal considered the case of a creditor which, in special revitalisation proceedings, asked the provisional judicial administrator and the debtor for the supporting documentation — invoices, contracts, analytical trial balances for 2024 and 2025 — of fourteen claims listed in the provisional list but never filed by their holders, running to millions and decisive for the formation of majorities. The first instance had rejected the application for want of legal basis and ordered the creditor to pay costs as an anomalous incident. The Court of Appeal set that decision aside: what was at stake was not judicial investigation of claims, but breach of the debtor duty of information, and it ordered the debtor to be notified to provide the material. The judgment stresses that, although the judge does not interfere in the negotiation, he is bound to assess the plan under Article 17-F(7)(g) of the Insolvency Code and to the scrutiny of Articles 214 and 215, so that breach of the duty of information may amount to a material departure from procedural rules bearing on confirmation. For creditors, this opens a concrete route to scrutinise claims of doubtful origin before the vote. Ref.: Évora Court of Appeal (2nd Civil Chamber), 14/07/2026, case No. 3024/25.1T8STR-A.E1, Reporting Judge Maria Domingas Simões.
Discharge of residual debt: income excluded from assignment raised from one to one and a half times the minimum wage
In the insolvency of an individual, the first instance had set the amount excluded from assignment to the trustee during the assignment period at one national minimum wage. The debtor, retired, received a net monthly pension of 2,985.80 euros, lived with his wife, who received a net old-age pension of 400.82 euros, in a home provided free of charge by their daughter, and the household bore fixed monthly expenses of 1,649.94 euros. The Évora Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and raised the non-disposable income to one and a half times the guaranteed minimum monthly remuneration, holding that the minimum wage plus the spouse pension did not even cover the proven fixed expenses. The criterion relied on is Article 239(3)(b)(i) of the Insolvency Code, read in the light of the protection of human dignity. The decision confirms that the amount to be excluded is not an automatic figure anchored to the minimum wage, but the result of a concrete assessment of the household composition and burdens. Ref.: Évora Court of Appeal (2nd Civil Chamber), 14/07/2026, case No. 77/26.9T8PTG-B.E1, Reporting Judge Ana Margarida Carvalho Pinheiro Leite.
Avoidance for the benefit of the estate: unchallenged within three months, it stands even if exercised late
Insolvency having been declared in June 2022, the insolvency administrator avoided, for the benefit of the estate, by letter received on 15 May 2024, a giving in payment executed in June 2020. The acquirer only reacted in November 2025, arguing that the time limit in Article 123 of the Insolvency Code is a forfeiture period, that a late avoidance declaration would be ineffective and that forfeiture would be a matter for the court own motion under Article 333 of the Civil Code. The Évora Court of Appeal upheld the decision under appeal: the right to challenge the avoidance lapses after three months under Article 125 of the Insolvency Code, a period covering both the factual grounds and defects in the validity of the avoidance act itself. Once that period expires without an action against the insolvent estate, the act becomes settled and the court is barred from examining, even of its own motion, earlier irregularities. For third-party acquirers and for mortgagee or attaching creditors relying on the avoided transaction, the reaction must be timely and brought by the proper route. Ref.: Évora Court of Appeal (2nd Civil Chamber), 14/07/2026, case No. 1620/22.8T8STR-F.E1, Reporting Judge Ana Margarida Carvalho Pinheiro Leite.
This newsletter is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For an analysis of your specific situation, please contact us.