THE AUTHOR:<\/strong> The Brazilian Arbitration Forum is an annual event organized by Sciences Po Law School with the sponsorship of CAM-CCBC Center for Mediation and Arbitration<\/a>, and the support of the ICC<\/a>, the Clube dos Arbitralistas Lus\u00f3fonos and the Sciences Po Arbitration Society. This year\u2019s 6th<\/sup> edition of the conference was held on the 7th<\/sup> and 8th<\/sup> September in Paris.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first day was hosted at Sciences Po Law School and featured four round tables concerning hot topics in arbitration prevalent in Brazil<\/a> and Latin America. The second day, held at the International Chamber of Commerce \u2013 ICC, focused on the interaction between arbitration and national courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This blog post sheds light on the background of the conference and summarizes the main topics discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first day of the event, held at Sciences Po, was opened by Professor Diego Fernandez Arroyo<\/a>, who recalled the background of the Sciences Po Law School \u2013 CAM-CCBC<\/a> cooperation and presented the main topics of the conference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Brazilian Arbitration Forum is a result of a successful and lasting collaboration between Sciences Po Law School and the CAM-CCBC<\/a>, thanks to the invaluable stewardship of the members of its organization committee \u2013 Diego P. Fern\u00e1ndez Arroyo<\/a>, Jos\u00e9 Ricardo Feris<\/a>, Renato Grion<\/a>, Rodrigo Garcia da Fonseca<\/a> and Bruno Sousa Rodrigues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Throughout the years, the event has encouraged a new generation of practitioners and young scholars in the field of arbitration. On March 29th<\/sup>, 2023, this collaboration was further strengthened by the signature of a partnership agreement<\/a> between the two entities, under which they reinforced their commitment with ongoing work, such as the Brazilian Arbitration Forum, and announced new initiatives, such as, for instance, a joint scholarship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first roundtable, Jos\u00e9 Ricardo Feris<\/a> moderated the discussions on the topic \u201cArbitration and predictable justice: friends or foes? (Should arbitrators be predictable?)\u201d. Speakers Fabiane Ver\u00e7osa<\/a>, Sofia Ribeiro Mendes, Cl\u00e1udio Finkelstein<\/a>, and Jos\u00e9 Miguel Judice<\/a> debated if arbitrators are bound to Brazilian courts\u2019 case law in disputes in which Brazilian substantive law applies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Panelists concluded negatively, despite recognizing that Brazilian arbitrators usually consider judicial precedents when deciding over the dispute. The speakers also dove into the potential benefits and risks of adopting artificial intelligence in arbitration as a mechanism to strengthen predictability. The panelists concurred that artificial intelligence may be a useful tool \u2013 for instance, when parties wish to evaluate their chances of success in an upcoming dispute. However, it cannot replace the role of arbitrators, since, in the panelists\u2019 view, the process of decision-making requires features and activities that only humans can perform, such as assessing evidence, analyzing arguments and facts, and connecting them with previous experience and knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second panel, entitled \u201cRealities and challenges of collective shareholders claims\u201d, was moderated by Renato Grion<\/a>. Speaker Lucila Carvalho dealt with emblematic collective shareholders arbitrations in Brazil, notably the ones initiated by shareholders of Petrobras, Vale and, Americanas after events that led to stock price decreases. The growing importance of shareholders\u2019 collective arbitrations in Brazil<\/a> gave rise to Bill 2925<\/a>, which aims to establish a legal framework for these disputes, and was analyzed by speaker Riccardo Torre<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, panelists Paula Costa e Silva<\/a> and Filipe Vaz Pinto<\/a> shared that Portugal\u2019s<\/a> experience is limited to class actions \u2013 based, for example, on consumer and data protection claims. Additionally, the speakers discussed controversial issues which may arise in collective shareholders arbitration, such as how to assess the shareholders\u2019 consent to arbitrate, if the proceedings should be public, the extent of the arbitrator\u2019s duty of disclosure in collective cases, and matters related to third-party funding and security for costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third panel pertained to Oil & Gas arbitration disputes in Brazil (\u201cPresent and Future of Oil & Gas Arbitration \u00e0 Brasileira\u201d) and was moderated by Rodrigo Garcia da Fonseca<\/a>. Speaker Ana Carolina Beneti<\/a> shed light on the evolution of arbitration clauses inserted in concession agreements of the Brazilian National Agency for Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels – ANP, the regulating body for the activities within the oil, natural gas, and biofuels industries in Brazil<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Against this backdrop, panelist Ana Luiza Nery<\/a> commented on the outcome of the \u201cJubarte\u201d case (Petrobras v. ANP 2015<\/a>), arisen in connection with a concession agreement executed between Petrobras and ANP. After Petrobras initiated arbitral proceedings under the ICC Rules, the ANP challenged the arbitral tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction, leading to a decision<\/a> by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice, which held that the issue was prima facie<\/em> arbitrable and, thus, that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, speakers Lauro Gama<\/a> and Jo\u00e3o Vicente Pereira Assis<\/a> discussed the Dommo case (Dommo Energia v. Enauta Energia and Barra Energia<\/a>), a landmark case of the industry, in which the arbitrators assessed the validity of a forfeiture clause provided in a Joint Operating Agreement, pursuant to Brazilian law. In a partial award, the arbitral tribunal concluded that the forfeiture clause was valid in that case, since it did not constitute an abusive penal clause, nor a breach of good faith \u2013 as argued by Dommo \u2013, but rather a provision freely agreed by the parties, which are bound by the principle \u201cpay first, argue later\u201d. Lastly, the speakers debated future hot topics in Oil & Gas arbitration in Brazil, notably environmental issues and ESG clauses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the fourth and last panel of day 1, entitled \u201cArbitration in Turmoil in Brazil<\/a> and Latin-America \u2013 Much Ado About Nothing?\u201d, moderator Diego P. Fern\u00e1ndez Arroyo conducted the debate on the Brazilian state of the art regarding challenges of arbitrators and the duty of disclosure. Speakers Debora Visconte<\/a>, Bruno Sousa Rodrigues, Ana Gerdau de Borja, and Isabela Lacreta<\/a> emphasized that cultural background plays an important role in the duty of disclosure, since the standard for disclosure is subjective. Nevertheless, panelists agreed that adopting a different (i.e.<\/em>, \u201cLatinized\u201d) standard for the duty of disclosure in Brazil may have adverse consequences, especially by distancing arbitration in Brazil from international best practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, speakers commented on local initiatives, notably the newly issued guidelines<\/a> of the Brazilian Arbitration Committee (CBAr),<\/a> which aim to help arbitrators, lawyers, parties, and institutions handle questions related to the duty of disclosure of arbitrators, in accordance with Brazilian law and international standards. These Guidelines also include recommendations directed to the parties, such as the duty to cooperate with the arbitrators and to be informed about facts of the public domain regarding the arbitrators. Panelists further reflected on possible mechanisms to protect arbitrators in Brazil<\/a> and Latin America, given the recent attacks and criminal prosecutions some of them face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The second day of the conference was hosted by the ICC<\/a> and featured one round table, entitled \u201cArbitration and National Courts – Convergence or Divergence?\u201d and moderated by Luiza Saldanha<\/a>. Speakers Esperanza Barron Baratech<\/a>, Daniel Levy<\/a>, Samantha Nataf<\/a>, and Jose Manuel Garcia Represa<\/a> dealt with the intervention of national courts in arbitration, focusing on three stages: (i) the beginning of the arbitration, (ii) during arbitral proceedings and (iii) after the award was rendered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the first issue<\/strong>, panelists discussed the role of national courts in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, based on their experience acting as counsel. This role of the courts can be exercised both (i) to enable the constitution of the panel (i.e.<\/em>, constructively) \u2013 for instance, by appointing an arbitrator in an ad hoc case when one of the parties fails to do so \u2013 as well as (ii) to review the constitution of the arbitral tribunal (i.e<\/em>., destructively) \u2013 e.g.<\/em>, to annul the selection of an arbitrator deemed to not have been rightly appointed. Speakers also mentioned strategic elements to be considered by counsel when deciding to submit an interim measure before state courts or to an emergency arbitrator, such as the nature of the measure, the urgency of the situation, the importance of confidentiality and whether the decision-maker should analyze the merits of the dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As to the second matter<\/strong>, speakers dealt with practical cases in which state courts intervened during the course of arbitral proceedings. For instance, panelists commented on the 2020 ruling of the French Supreme Court, which refused to refer the parties to arbitration on the grounds that a consumer was not bound by the arbitration agreement (PwC 2020<\/a>). Further, the panelists discussed cases of unwanted intervention of State courts in arbitration, including the criminal measures adopted against arbitrators in some Latin American countries as a mechanism to exercise pressure and intimidate arbitrators \u2013 e.g.<\/em>, cases in Peru<\/a> and Brazil<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The third and last part<\/strong> of the panel analyzed the role of national courts after the final arbitral award was rendered. As such, the speakers debated if courts should delve into questions of admission of evidence when deciding over requests of enforcement or setting aside of awards. Panelists reached a negative conclusion, except if the issue pertains to international public policy. Finally, given that national courts often take different (if not antagonistic) positions on issues related to arbitration, the speakers highlighted that sophisticated parties have been progressively adjusting their arbitration clauses to mitigate risks of diverging interpretations of their content by State courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 6th<\/sup> Brazilian Arbitration Forum was another successful edition of the conference, providing the participants with insightful discussions about the current arbitration trends in the region. As shown by the speakers, arbitration has consolidated itself as an efficient mechanism to solve commercial disputes in Brazil<\/a> and Latin America, notably those involving shareholders\u2019 claims and Oil & Gas matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the prominent role acquired by arbitration has also led to turmoil. The panels revealed that arbitrators have been suffering attacks, including with the involvement of criminal courts, on the grounds of lack of independence and violation of the duty of disclosure. Thus, arbitration in the region seems to be undergoing a self-regulating process, which requires the participation and interaction between users of arbitration, practitioners, State courts, and legislators. The outcome of this process is expected to further strengthen the legitimacy of arbitration in the region and solidify an arbitration-friendly environment in the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Helena<\/strong> <\/strong>Acker<\/strong> is a Brazilian qualified lawyer with five years of arbitration and litigation experience gained at Ferro, Castro Neves, Daltro & Gomide Advogados<\/strong><\/a>. Helena has advised clients on energy, construction, Oil & Gas and post-M&A disputes. She is currently an LL.M. Candidate in Transnational Arbitration and Dispute Settlement at Sciences Po Law School, having been awarded the CAM-CCBC<\/a> International Arbitration Excellence Grant. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The 6th Brazilian Arbitration Forum explored key arbitration issues in Brazil and Latin America. Topics ranged from predictable justice and collective shareholders’ claims to Oil & Gas disputes, showcasing challenges and advancements in the field. Read more about what happened at the conference! <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":278946,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"210","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"","fb_description":"The 6th Brazilian Arbitration Forum explored key arbitration issues in Brazil and Latin America. Topics ranged from predictable justice and collective shareholders' claims to Oil & Gas disputes, showcasing challenges and advancements in the field. Read more about what happened at the conference! ","fb_image":"278941","twitter_title":"","twitter_description":"","twitter_image":""},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[162,205,165,210,188,129,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-278939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-americas","category-arbitration","category-brazil","category-conference-reports","category-legal-insights","category-news","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278939","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=278939"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278939\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":278958,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278939\/revisions\/278958"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/278946"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=278939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=278939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=278939"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=278939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Helena Acker<\/strong>, Associate at Ferro, Castro Neves, Daltro & Gomide Advogados<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nHot Topics in Brazilian Arbitration: Predictable Justice, Collective Shareholders Claims, Oil & Gas Disputes, and Duty of Disclosure<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Arbitration and Predictable Justice: Friends or Foes?<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Realities and Challenges of Collective Shareholders Claims<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Present and Future of Oil & Gas Arbitration \u00e0 Brasileira<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Arbitration in Turmoil in Brazil<\/a> and Latin-America: Much Ado About Nothing?<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Arbitration and National Courts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n