The possibility of judicial recovery for rural producers is a controversial issue in recovery law, and is surrounded by legal controversies, since Law 11.101/05 initially focused only on regular companies with prior registration. However, due to the increase in the number of requests for judicial recovery by rural producers, the issue gained much relevance, attracting the attention of the legislator. The latter, understanding that agribusiness is extremely important for the Brazilian economy, chose to allow the protection of this sector through judicial recovery. However, even though the possibility of rural producers filing for judicial recovery has been settled, there are many controversies regarding the credits subject to the procedure. This occurs because the figure of the rural producer, who uses agribusiness as a true business activity, is mixed with the figure of his natural person, who also acquires rights and obligations. Since Law 11.101/05 proved insufficient to resolve the conflict, case law began to adopt certain criteria to exclude certain credits from the judicial recovery process. According to current understandings, debts related to the business activity carried out are subject to the Judicial Recovery of the rural producer. Therefore, even debts incurred before the formalization of the registration with the commercial board can be included, as long as the activity in the agribusiness sector before the aforementioned is proven.

registration. This interpretation has brought about a significant development in the matter, providing greater legal certainty to producers. On the other hand, credits that do not originate from the agricultural activity carried out by the rural producer are not subject to judicial recovery. In other words, credits of a personal nature, such as financing or loans that are not directly linked to the business activity, or those arising from obligations that are not linked to the agricultural activity, even if they were contracted by the rural producer. In addition, tax credits, which are expressly not subject to judicial recovery, have also remained excluded. Based on the analysis of recent judgments, it can be seen that the case law is favorable to the rural producer, especially regarding the inclusion of credits prior to their formal registration. The Superior Court of Justice has been consolidating this understanding, establishing that judicial recovery may cover debts related to the business activity regardless of the time of registration. Thus, the Court leads us to believe that registration is a formality, and not a determining historical milestone for recognizing, or not, the subjection of a credit to the judicial recovery process. This interpretation facilitates the economic restructuring of rural producers, since many, although they operate in a businesslike manner, only formalize their registration in critical moments. Case law recognizes the importance of the sector for the national economy and seeks to protect this type of debtor, ensuring the continuity of operations in the agricultural sector, especially in times of economic crisis. In conclusion, the possibility of judicial recovery for rural producers represented a significant advance in the protection of the agricultural sector, especially considering its economic importance for Brazil. However, the positivization alone did not prove to be sufficient for the peaceful application of the procedure. Therefore, case law began to act to settle controversies, and has shown itself to be favorable to rural producers, recognizing the inclusion of credits prior to formal registration, as long as they are linked to business activity. This flexible interpretation guarantees greater legal certainty and allows rural producers to face economic crises without compromising the continuity of their activities, protecting agribusiness and contributing to its financial recovery. This debate is extremely relevant, especially in an economic scenario where the preservation of rural activity becomes essential for market stability.