Enforcement, Credit, and the Economic Function of the Company: Why Not All Assets Can Be Expropriated

Can enforcement render a company unviable in the name of credit satisfaction?No. Enforcement cannot be conducted in a manner that destroys the company’s economic function, under penalty of violating the principles of proportionality, preservation of productive activity, and the very rationality of the legal-economic system.

Credit satisfaction does not automatically prevail over business continuity.

What is meant by the economic function of the company?

The economic function of a company consists of its ability to:

• generate wealth;

• produce goods and services;

• maintain jobs;

• perform contracts;

• circulate credit;

• sustain ongoing legal relationships.

This is a legally protected value, even if implicitly, within the legal system.

Is the company merely an asset pool available for expropriation?

No.

A company:

• is not synonymous with an isolated set of assets;

• is an organization of production factors;

• has its own dynamics and requires continuity.

Indiscriminate expropriation of essential assets undermines the very source of credit repayment.

Does default eliminate protection of the economic function?

No.

Default:

• is inherent to credit risk;

• does not, by itself, strip the business activity of legitimacy;

• does not authorize predatory enforcement.

Enforcement must pursue the credit without rendering lawful economic activity unviable.

How can credit satisfaction be reconciled with preservation of the company?

By means of:

• observing the least onerous means possible;

• respecting the statutory order of attachment;

• assessing the essentiality of assets;

• rational selection of enforcement measures;

• proportionality between the credit amount and the impact of attachment.

Efficient enforcement is not destructive enforcement.

Does frustration of credit authorize expropriation of essential assets?

Not automatically.

Frustration:

• does not legitimize extreme measures;

• does not eliminate the need for balancing interests;

• does not authorize choosing the most burdensome means for convenience.

Enforcement must be effective and balanced, not retaliatory.

Can productive assets be treated as ordinary assets in enforcement?

No.

Productive assets:

• have a specific economic function;

• are part of the revenue-generation chain;

• are not equivalent to idle or surplus assets.

Their attachment requires careful analysis, under penalty of rendering the company itself unviable.

Can enforcement harm third parties and the market?

Yes—and for that reason it must be restrained.

Disproportionate enforcement actions:

• affect employees;

• break contracts;

• frustrate suppliers;

• generate chains of default;

• compromise credit circulation.

The law cannot ignore these systemic effects.

What is the role of the Judiciary in preserving the economic function?

The Judiciary must:

• balance credit enforcement and business continuity;

• avoid automatic decisions;

• require concrete reasoning;

• curb predatory enforcement;

• preserve legal and economic certainty.

Judicial action must not turn enforcement proceedings into instruments of corporate collapse.

Does preserving the company also benefit the creditor?

Yes.

Preserving the company:

• maintains the resource-generating source;

• increases the likelihood of future payment;

• avoids systemic losses;

• protects the credit environment itself.

Destroying the company rarely benefits the creditor in the medium and long term.

How does this topic connect with receivables, guarantees, and piercing the corporate veil?

The economic function:

• reinforces limits on enforcement;

• aligns with preservation of asset separation;

• prevents trivialization of veil piercing;

• requires respect for structured guarantees;

• promotes responsible and technically sound credit.

All of this forms a coherent legal system, not isolated compartments.

Conclusion

In contemporary Business Law:

• enforcement has limits;

• credit requires technical rigor;

• the company is not disposable;

• the economic function must be preserved;

• disproportionate decisions generate systemic insecurity.

Enforcing without destroying protects credit, the company, and the system itself.

Technical Summary

✔️ The company has a protected economic function

✔️ Enforcement cannot be predatory

✔️ Productive assets require differentiated analysis

✔️ Preservation also benefits the creditor

✔️ Legal certainty depends on balance

Ferreira Advocacia operates with technical rigor in complex enforcement proceedings, receivables, guarantees, corporate reorganizations, and preservation of economic activity, offering strategic, balanced legal solutions aligned with the security of the legal-economic system.