Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
0 comments 
Between courts in Brazil and the United States, the restructuring of Ambipar advances under pressure from creditors, deadlines, and legal choices that could redefine the course of the group and affect a negotiation closely monitored by the market.
Ambipar Emergency Response, the operational arm of the Ambipar group, has requested the U.S. courts for an additional 75 days of exclusivity to present a reorganization plan.
At the same time, the company reported that it is still evaluating whether to continue under Chapter 11 or to end this process to seek recognition in the country through Chapter 15.
The hearing on the request is scheduled for May 13, in Texas, and some of the debt holders have already expressed opposition to the extension.
-
With a loan of R$ 12 billion and a restructuring plan, Correios becomes the state-owned company with the largest debt guaranteed by the Treasury.
-
Brazil records the largest external accounts deficit in 11 years with a negative balance of US$ 68.8 billion in 2025.
-
Riachuelo’s CEO says that the “blouse tax” is the wrong name and that it should be called “Chinese incentive.”
-
After 20 years, the export of apples from SC is unblocked with certification in São Joaquim and Fraiburgo and direct shipping from Santa Catarina ports, reducing logistics costs, terminal time, and losses in perishable cargo.
The movement in the United States occurs in parallel to the judicial recovery initiated in Brazil.
In the Brazilian process, the group reported that the restructuring involves debts exceeding R$ 11 billion and aims to preserve approximately 23,000 direct jobs, in addition to maintaining contracts and the continuity of operations while negotiating with creditors.
On October 20, 2025, Ambipar Emergency Response filed for Chapter 11 in the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court.
On the same day, Ambipar Participações and Environmental ESG filed for judicial recovery in Brazil.
Just a few days later, on October 30, the court in Rio de Janeiro granted the processing of the judicial recovery.
Ambipar’s Request in U.S. Court
In the petition filed in Texas, the company states that the case currently in the United States does not correspond to a typical Chapter 11.
According to the company, the measure is part of a broader restructuring of the group, coordinated in conjunction with the Brazilian process.
With this argument, Ambipar argues that maintaining the exclusivity period could favor negotiations with creditors and prevent the presentation of competing plans before the legal path to be adopted is defined.
In a document filed in the process, the company stated that this scenario would reduce the risk of dispersing the ongoing negotiations.
The discussion, however, involves more than just a simple extension of the deadline.
In the records, the company acknowledges that it has not yet decided whether to continue under Chapter 11, presenting its own plan in the United States, or if it will end this stage to resort to Chapter 15, a mechanism aimed at the recognition of insolvency proceedings initiated in other countries.
This uncertainty has become one of the central points of the process.
For the company, the alternative needs to remain open while advancing the coordination of the restructuring in different jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the creditors contesting the request claim that the lack of definition prevents an objective assessment of the usefulness of the requested extension.
Difference between Chapter 11 and Chapter 15
The Chapter 11 is the instrument of American legislation used for the reorganization of companies in financial crisis.
In this model, the debtor remains under judicial supervision and can present a plan to renegotiate obligations, maintain operations, and attempt to restructure their financial situation.
On the other hand, Chapter 15 has a distinct nature.
It functions as a mechanism for international cooperation and allows the U.S. courts to recognize a main insolvency proceeding that is ongoing in another country, as is the case with Brazilian judicial recovery.
In practice, the difference between the two paths affects the scope of the American court’s actions.
In Chapter 11, the reorganization takes place directly in the United States.
In Chapter 15, the focus usually falls on the recognition and protection, in American territory, of measures taken in the main foreign proceeding.
According to the position presented by Ambipar, the second alternative began to be considered because the group’s restructuring is centered in Brazil.
The company informed the court that it initially considered resorting to Chapter 15 but opted, at that moment, for the opening of Chapter 11.
Creditors contest deadline and demand definition
Some of the debt holders contest the request for an extension of the deadline.
In a judicial manifestation, this group claims that the company has not made sufficient progress in negotiations over the past few months and argues that the extension is not accompanied by a concrete reorganization plan.
The creditors also allege that the company indicated at different times that it might not even present a plan under Chapter 11.
In this group’s assessment, this reinforces the interpretation that the American process has been used to contain collection measures in the United States while the company defined another strategy for the restructuring.
According to the bondholders, the extension of exclusivity would prevent, for a longer time, the presentation of alternatives by other interested parties.
The objection presented to the court states that, without a definition regarding the direction of the case, the request for a new deadline does not provide sufficient elements to justify the continuation of the procedural benefit.
On the company’s side, the response was that the American case should be analyzed in conjunction with the group’s reorganization.
Ambipar maintains that the negotiations need to be viewed in the context of a broader corporate structure, with operations in different markets and liabilities distributed across various fronts.
Judicial recovery of Ambipar in Brazil
In the petition presented to the Fluminense Justice, the group described a structure with operations in dozens of countries, hundreds of operational bases, and a strong presence in environmental services and emergency response.
In the same document, the company reported that the salaries of more than 23 thousand direct employees were being paid regularly and that the judicial recovery aimed to preserve the continuity of activities.
The company also related the request for judicial protection to the maintenance of contracts and the effort to avoid operational disorganization during negotiations with creditors.
The Brazilian process thus became the main axis of the group’s restructuring attempt, while the American case continued as a parallel front.
Before this, in September 2025, Ambipar had already turned to the Justice of Rio de Janeiro amid a litigation involving Deutsche Bank.
At that time, the company stated that the possibility of early debt maturity could trigger a chain reaction on other financial obligations, which pressured its cash situation.
This history helps explain why the current dispute is not limited to a procedural discussion about deadlines.
What is under analysis involves how the company intends to coordinate its reorganization between Brazil and the United States, as well as the impact that this definition may have on negotiations with creditors and on the preservation of operations.
Hearing in Texas and next developments of the case
The hearing scheduled in Texas is expected to address the request for an extension of the exclusivity period and the objections raised by creditors.
Depending on the court’s decision, Ambipar may have more time to decide whether to present a plan under Chapter 11 or to redirect the strategy to a request under Chapter 15.
Meanwhile, the Brazilian process continues to serve as a reference for the group’s restructuring.
The definition from the American Justice, therefore, should indicate whether the company will continue with a formal reorganization in the United States or if it will focus the international coordination of the case on the recognition of the judicial recovery already underway in Brazil.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!