A recent decision rendered by an arbitral tribunal constituted under the Centre for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada has ended a 20-year dispute over the largest container port in South America. The outcome of this arbitration is positive, as it demonstrates that Brazil's arbitral framework is well established and well functioning – even in disputes involving public administration.
The Superior Court of Justice recently upheld a Sao Paulo State Appellate Court decision which had set aside an arbitral award due to alleged irregularities during the formation of the arbitral tribunal in the context of a multi-party dispute. The Superior Court of Justice's decision confirms the appellate court's opinion that the proceeding which had been adopted to form the arbitral tribunal contravened public policy.
The Superior Court of Justice recently confirmed the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal constituted before the Market Arbitration Chamber to render a decision connected to a company that had filed a lawsuit for a recovery plan before the competent court of law. In addition to taking a pro-arbitral stance on an important national case, this decision reinforces the jurisdictional nature of arbitration and solidifies the case law on conflicts of competence.
A recent Superior Court of Justice decision has broadened the interpretation of consent to an arbitration agreement to include economic groups, which could – by implication – pierce the corporate veil in such cases and extend arbitral jurisdiction to non-signatory parties. The decision sets a precedent for this issue and will serve as a parameter for future decisions by both the lower courts and the Superior Court of Justice.
The Sao Paulo State Appellate Court recently rendered an important precedent on the interpretation of Article 4(2) of the Arbitration Act. The appellate court ultimately dismissed the franchisee's appeal, despite arguments that, among other things, the franchise agreement entered into by the parties was a contract by adhesion, pursuant to Article 54 of the Consumer Protection Code. As such, the arbitration clause was invalid because it did not follow the requirements contained in Article 4(2) of the Arbitration Act.
A number of recent aircraft repossession actions have demonstrated that a majority of judges have correctly recognised lessor rights to repossession in the face of apparent lease agreement defaults. However, these decisions have not clearly cited the Cape Town Convention as their basis. The Brazilian judiciary's failure to unify repossession actions against a bankrupt lessee in a single court has meant that some lessors are subject to minority view decisions that can be upheld on appeal.
Following developments earlier in 2019, aircraft repossession has continued to be in the spotlight – yet again with regard to the Oceanair Linhas Aéreas SA (commonly known as 'Avianca Brazil') bankruptcy and, in particular, the experience of lessors that sought repossession of leased aircraft therefrom. In this case, and contrary to Avianca Brazil's pre-bankruptcy experience, a bankruptcy court failed to uphold the express provisions of the Bankruptcy Law 2005 and the Cape Town Convention
In respect of four aircraft that were recently repossessed before Avianca Brazil obtained bankruptcy protection, the Brazilian judiciary and civil aviation agency procedures worked reasonably well and Brazil's overall performance complied with its obligations under the Cape Town Convention. While all four aircraft were exported and de-registered within approximately two weeks, Brazilian customs authorities must still reassess the current export authorisation procedure.
A tax regulation that was promulgated in 2016 has taken effect in ways that are now affecting aircraft lessors and lenders to Brazilian carriers, including by imposing requirements concerning the identification of lessor entities' ultimate beneficial owners and increasing the document disclosure requirements on lessors and lenders in cross-border aircraft finance transactions. While the full impact of the new rules is still unclear, lessors and lenders to Brazilian operators should prepare to comply.
Interchange agreements are relatively new and have been increasingly used by commercial aircraft operators in Brazil. In response to industry requests, the Brazilian Civil Aviation Agency and the Brazilian Aeronautical Registry recently clarified several applicable rules. Due to their novelty, interchange agreements are not always understood in the industry. While such agreements share some similarities with interline and code-share agreements, they have important distinctions.
The National Monetary Council recently issued Resolution 4,656, regulating credit fintech companies. The resolution will allow direct credit companies and interpersonal loan companies to conduct loan and financial operations through electronic platforms. Although it is still uncertain how the market will react to the new rules, the industry is optimistic, considering the significant developments in this area that have been observed in other markets.
The Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) and the Central Bank recently entered into a memorandum of understanding. This initiative strengthens the relationship between the two authorities and promotes greater cooperation among them for the analysis of merger cases and anti-competitive practices by financial institutions. It also represents an important step forward, signalling the end to the longstanding dispute between CADE and the Central Bank over jurisdictional conflicts.
Simple legal transactions and contracts can often be completed at the click of a button. However, there are a growing number of investment rounds in start-ups based on Brazilian versions of Silicon Valley contracts that unfortunately have not benefited from the critical eye and practical expertise of experienced lawyers who can examine the contracts under Brazilian law.
It is hardly surprising that Brazil's adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards did not mesh perfectly with the Corporations Law. This article discusses the reasons for this incongruity, including that the international accounting model draws more inspiration from common law systems than from Brazil's civil law tradition and the temporal distance between the Corporations Law (although it remains modern in spirit) and the accounting rules, which are constantly evolving.
The Administrative Council for Economic Defence recently issued a decision on the definition of 'de facto control' under Brazilian competition law. While the decision establishes certain criteria that companies should consider when determining whether their contractual relationships with close partners may confer de facto control, these criteria are somewhat unclear and do not allow companies to assess, with sufficient certainty, whether an agreement should be subject to mandatory review.
The Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) tribunal recently fined Unilever R29.4 million for abusing its dominant position in the impulse ice cream (ie, ice cream for immediate consumption) market. According to CADE, Unilever had violated competition law by adopting different types of agreement with its points of sale, which had resulted in their de facto exclusivity to sell Unilever ice creams under the brand Kibon.
The Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) recently requested, for the second time, the compulsory notification of a transaction that did not meet the legal turnover thresholds. This right allows the authority to review the business strategies of successive small acquisitions or acquisitions of nascent rivals in the event that they do not trigger the turnover thresholds. The risk that the CADE may require notification seems to increase following complaints by competitors or third parties.
In recent years, Brazil's antitrust authority – the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) – has undergone a reshuffling in terms of the composition of both the Administrative Tribunal (comprising commissioners) and the General Superintendence. Among the issues that have come before the reshuffled CADE, two investigations are particularly notable because they reveal a new trend in its approach to IP rights.
Since the start of 2018, following a period in which it focused on the persecution of cartels, the Administrative Council for Economic Defence (CADE) has directed more resources towards concluding pending abuse of dominance matters and occasionally launching new dominance cases. In so doing, the most pertinent question has become: how will CADE deal with dominance in future?