Revista da EMERJ - V. 22 - N.1 - Janeiro/Março - 2020

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 22, n. 1, p. 71 - 99, Janeiro-Março. 2020  72 cultativo. Posteriormente, pontuaremos a antiga discussão acer- ca do litisconsórcio facultativo unitário nas ações anulatórias de assembleia. Por fim, concluiremos acerca da necessidade de incluir ou não os administradores no polo passivo da ação. KEYWORDS Company Director; approval of accounts without reserva- tion; deliberation; joinder of parties. ABSTRACT The question that is analyzed in this article is whether or not, in an application to set aside a company meeting that was convened to approve the accounts, it is mandatory for the company and its directors to be joined as co-defendants to the lawsuit.  The basic premise in the debate is that members of a company who consider that they have been prejudiced by the management act of a given director (administrator) are entitled to apply to court for an order setting aside the deliberation that approved said act. The question that arises is whether service of process must be served on the director as a compulsory co- -defendant?  The author begins by examining certain aspects of meetings convened to approve company accounts and then examines the importance of members that are dissatisfied with the outcome challenging before a court the deliberations that led to approval of the accounts. This challenge is an important step in ensuring the viability of a damages lawsuit against the directors. Follo- wing this analysis, the author examines the procedural rules as to joinder of parties, drawing a distinction between compulsory joinder and permissive joinder and ponders the long standing debate as to whether there is a need for the permissive joinder pertaining to applications to set aside company meetings to be ‘unitary’ joinder i.e. a joinder leading to all of the joined parties being uniformly subject to the effects of the final court order. The author concludes the paper with an examination of whether or