THE AUTHOR<\/strong>: On 25 June 2024, the Brazilian Arbitration Committee (Comit\u00ea Brasileiro de Arbitragem<\/em> \u2013 \u201cCBAr\u201d) hosted an event on its Guidelines on the Arbitrator\u2019s Duty of Disclosure<\/a>, which were officially launched in September 2023 (the \u201cCBAr Guidelines\u201d). The event took place at the premises of the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada<\/a> (Centro de Arbitragem e Media\u00e7\u00e3o da C\u00e2mara de Com\u00e9rcio Brasil-Canad\u00e1<\/em> \u2013 \u201cCAM-CCBC\u201d) in S\u00e3o Paulo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panel discussion was held in Portuguese between the drafters of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (\u201cBAA\u201d) (Law n\u00ba 9.307\/1996 (reformed by Law n\u00ba 13.129\/2015)), Selma Ferreira Lemes<\/strong><\/a>, Carlos Alberto Carmona<\/strong><\/a> and Pedro A. Batista Martins<\/strong><\/a>, and was moderated by Debora Visconte<\/strong><\/a>, President of CBAr, and Patr\u00edcia Kobayashi<\/strong><\/a>, Executive Director of CAM-CCBC.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Debora Visconte opened the discussion and explained how the CBAr Guidelines<\/a> emerged from a collaborative drafting process by the CBAr Board of Directors that took almost a year between 2022 and 2023, incorporating input from the BAA drafters, academics, arbitration institutions, and the CBAr members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Patr\u00edcia Kobayashi then discussed CAM-CCBC’s new questionnaire regarding the availability and potential conflicts of interests of arbitrators acting in CAM-CCBC cases (the \u201cQuestionnaire\u201d), which serves as a tool to facilitate the process of disclosure to the parties and is therefore more than a simple arbitrator statement form. It is divided into four categories of questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n (i) Initial questions including on the arbitrator\u2019s availability,<\/p>\n\n\n\n (ii) Questions on the arbitrator\u2019s relationship to the parties,<\/p>\n\n\n\n (iii) Questions on the arbitrator\u2019s relationship to the parties\u2019 counsel, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n (iv) Additional questions on the arbitrator\u2019s interest in the outcome of the case and potential additional disclosures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The moderators then invited the panelists to comment on the CBAr Guidelines in turn.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the ease of reference of the reader of this report, each of the guidelines will be quoted below, followed by the respective summary of comments made by the panelists and moderators:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Debora Visconte commented that Guideline 1 is of introductory nature and clarifies the nature and applicability of the CBAr Guidelines. The panel stressed the CBAr Guidelines’ important role in filling Brazil’s legislative gap regarding arbitrator disclosure. Selma Lemes explained that the Guidelines complement existing international standards like the IBA (International Bar Association) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2024) (\u201cIBA Guidelines\u201d)<\/a> while reflecting local needs. Pedro A. Batista Martins noted that the CBAr Guidelines emerged from years of experience and the growing Brazilian arbitration market, aiming to harmonize varying disclosure practices. Carlos Alberto Carmona added that while inspired by international standards, the Guidelines take a simpler approach, avoiding strict categorization and scenario lists and incorporating Brazilian case law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Batista Martins clarified that while Article 14.1 of the BAA mentions the arbitrator\u2019s duty to disclose only before his or her appointment, it always also implicitly included a disclosure duty throughout the proceedings. Mr. Carmona elaborated that the continued duty to disclose applies not only regarding new circumstances but also to existing facts that may later be qualified as potential conflicts. He added that new jurisprudence might require the disclosure of facts that were not disclosed beforehand<\/p>\n\n\n\n This Guideline reflects international practice<\/a>, which distinguishes between disclosable facts and actual conflicts of interest. Ms. Visconte noted, that the principle that a lack of disclosure as such does not automatically imply a lack of independence or impartiality was confirmed by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Superior Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a<\/em> \u2013 STJ) just a few days before the event and quoted a relevant part of the decision (RECURSO ESPECIAL N\u00ba 2101901 – SP (2023\/0366445-2)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Carmona observed that the state court of S\u00e3o Paulo had already decided in the same sense a while ago in several instances. He added that, nonetheless, state courts of other countries may disagree with this approach. They may find that the mere lack of disclosure leads to a discomfort of the parties, which as such may be a reason to challenge an arbitrator. Mr. Batista Martins confirmed that especially some U.S. courts have followed this approach in the past, stating that the mere lack of disclosure can have an impact on an arbitrator\u2019s impartiality. He further stated that what is decisive is that a third person will analyze whether an arbitrator is impartial or not, and that eventually this does not depend on the \u201ceyes of the parties\u201d<\/em> \u2013 an expression that is used by some arbitral institutions in their disclosure forms. According to Mr. Batista Martins, the disclosure standard based only on the parties\u2019 perception is problematic since it is impossible for the arbitrator to know how the parties think of a certain fact. Ms. Lemes stressed that the STJ in its recent decision used the expression \u201cinterested observer\u201d (observador interessado<\/em>), meaning that an arbitrator deciding on whether to make a disclosure should evaluate a situation from the very standpoint of the party to the dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following a question from the audience regarding the subjective versus the objective disclosure standard, the panelists discussed their respective relevance. The tendency in the discussion was that the objective standard should prevail when an arbitrator decides whether to make a disclosure or not, as it seems that, at least in Brazil, the state court that will eventually evaluate whether or not an arbitrator was conflicted would apply this standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The panelists then discussed that arbitrator forms of some institutions, especially in the U.S., are very detailed and include questions for instance with respect to the arbitrator candidate\u2019s religion, schools of his or her kids etc., which in these cultures may indeed be relevant for the parties. Mr. Carmona added that nonetheless, there must be a certain \u201climit to the curiosity\u201d of parties and noted that requests for clarifications of disclosures by parties have become very detailed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With respect to the issue of requests for clarifications, the panelists and the audience also discussed situations in which these requests are made in bad faith, meaning that a party already knew or should have known of a circumstance that it requires clarification on. It was suggested to fine parties that unambiguously act with this kind of procedural bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Patr\u00edcia Kobayashi explained that Guideline 4 concerns the scope of disclosure. Arbitrators must make reasonable inquiries to identify conflicts, which corresponds to Standard 7(d) of the IBA Guidelines. The Guideline also addresses the:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Batista Martins added that the ICC International Court of Arbitration first started including related entities into the information to be considered by arbitrator candidates in their conflict check. He noted that it would be important to establish whether the entities and persons that are indicated as related have an actual and economic relation to the dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Visconte explained that this Guideline establishes the parties\u2019 duty to cooperate in the disclosure process by providing relevant information to the arbitrator under article 14.1 of the BAA. Selma Lemes emphasized how this duty connects to the right to challenge arbitrators under Article 15, stressing the importance of timely disclosure. Mr. Carmona advocated for a balanced approach requiring effort from both arbitrators and parties, suggesting penalties for non-compliance. Ms. Lemes differentiated between mere common interests of an arbitrator and a party or counsel (like lecturing together) and actual conflicts of interest, which may justify an objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Kobayashi explained that this Guideline clearly establishes the parties\u2019 onus<\/em> to inform themselves about facts that are relevant for the arbitrator\u2019s disclosure prior to his\/her confirmation, giving examples of adequate enquiries, such as the research on online CV platforms (the Lattes platform is most commonly used in Brazil), the websites of law firms, etc. The Guideline also establishes that any issues regarding an arbitrator\u2019s independence and impartiality shall be raised at the first opportunity, which is in line with article 20 of the BAA, and addresses the parties\u2019 possibility to request clarifications from the arbitrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Carmona highlighted the usefulness of detailed CVs of the Brazilian platform Lattes, while warning against abusive clarification requests meant to delay proceedings, such as excessive inquiries about family members’ shareholdings. In his view, arbitral institutions should monitor this kind of abusive behavior. Mr. Martins and Ms. Lemes agreed that arbitral institutions should regulate the process of requesting clarifications. Ms. Lemes added that these processes sometimes take up to two years or even longer, which is not acceptable. In the following, the audience and the panelists discussed the so-called \u201cduty to be curious\u201d of the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Visconte explained that Guideline 7 addresses the issue of estoppel with respect to allegations of conflicts of interest, reflecting the regulation in article 20 of the BAA. This Guideline works in conjunction with Guideline 6 to prevent opportunistic challenges, particularly at a late stage of the proceedings or at the moment of control of the award by state courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Carmona stressed the idea that the arbitration market \u201cself-regulates\u201d the issue of disclosure, determining which kinds of facts should be disclosed and at which point in the proceedings. In this regard, the decisions on challenges against arbitrators by arbitral institutions are of particular relevance. These decisions, while not binding to the controlling state court, may also guide the respective court\u2019s reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As explained by Ms. Kobayashi, this Guideline complements the foregoing ones, and extends the idea of article 20 of the BAA, pursuant to which issues that could create conflicts of interest should be raised at the first opportunity. The parties accordingly should make the relevant enquiries at the first opportunity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [and]<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Visconte suggested to the panelists to comment on Guidelines 9 and 10 at the same time as they are related. Guideline 9 recommends the consideration of internationally accepted guidelines and specifically the IBA Guidelines with respect to the topic of disclosure, and Guideline 10 clarifies that \u2013 just like other sets of guidelines or so-called soft-laws<\/em> \u2013 the CBAr Guidelines and other internationally recognized guidelines may be adopted by mutual agreement of the parties, thereby becoming binding. The guidelines can also be modified and adjusted to the specific arbitration. Both Guideline 9 and 10 stress the possibility to apply internationally accepted guidelines also in domestic arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Batista Martins confirmed that it is a good practice to consider various different sets of guidelines. Mr. Carmona stressed the importance of international guidelines also for the Brazilian domestic arbitration market. Especially the consideration of the IBA Guidelines makes sense in Brazil, which \u2013 contrary to most European countries \u2013 has a monist arbitration law (See<\/em> Ar<\/span>ticle 34, sole paragraph of the BAA). He also welcomed the Guidelines\u2019 incentive for the parties to agree on the guidelines as binding and adapt them as needed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Kobayashi added that CAM-CCBC provides model Terms of Reference, suggesting the adoption of said guidelines by mutual agreement of the participants, however, this is still very rarely done. Mr. Carmona observed that since the models are normally first sent to the arbitrators, they already can include the relevance of guidelines, potentially in an adapted form. Ms. Kobayashi confirmed that this is a good opportunity to make the inclusion of guidelines such as the CBAr Guidelines more common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Kobayashi commented that this Guideline stresses the non-binding nature of the CBAr Guidelines, in a way that they are not decisive for different practices that were adopted before or after their publication. Mr. Carmona stated that the market had changed also with respect to which facts should be disclosed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the end of the discussion, the panelists stressed Brazil’s distinctive position in the international arbitration market. Ms. Visconte observed that the market’s significant growth over the past years has reduced conflict risks, as the large number of cases and arbitrators create a more diverse ecosystem than in smaller markets. Ms. Lemes added that despite arbitration not being mandatory in Brazil, unlike in countries such as Peru, it has achieved remarkable prominence, which is also due to consistently favorable state court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The audience and the panelists discussed briefly the disclosure duties of the administrative secretaries. Mr. Carmona confirmed that these duties correspond to the arbitrator\u2019s disclosure duties, as it is the case for experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ms. Kobayashi then addressed the CAM-CCBC statistics for the year 2023: among 438 on-going cases, only 11 arbitrator challenges were filed, with just 2 being upheld. This is a strong indication that the current disclosure process seems to be working well and that the Brazilian arbitration system is \u201chealthy\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The CBAr event provided unique insights into the considerations behind each of the CBAr Guidelines. The discussion among the BAA drafters, who also rank among the most reputable arbitrators of the country, with the input of the representatives of CBAr and CAM-CCBC, showed the great relevance of the CBAr Guidelines in the reality of the arbitration market. The panelists addressed certain controversies regarding the topic of disclosure, for instance with respect to the relevance of a lack of disclosure and of the subjective versus the objective standard, which will have to be kept in mind by practitioners. Based on the panelists\u2019 comments and issues discussed at the event, one can expect that the CBAr Guidelines will be of great value both in Brazilian domestic and international arbitrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Anna-Katharina Scheffer da Silveira<\/strong> is lawyer at Adriana Braghetta Advogados<\/strong> in S\u00e3o Paulo, Brazil. She acts in international and domestic arbitrations, with a focus on corporate, commercial, energy and construction disputes. Anna-Katharina also teaches in the Global Law Program of the law faculty FGV Direito S\u00e3o Paulo. She is a former Special Counsel of the law firms L.O. Baptista<\/a> and MAMG<\/a> in S\u00e3o Paulo, as well as a former Associate of Clifford Chance<\/a> in Paris, France, and Noerr<\/a> in D\u00fcsseldorf, Germany. Anna-Katharina also acted several years as a Deputy Counsel of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC<\/a> in Paris. She is admitted to the D\u00fcsseldorf Bar Association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n *The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Insights into CBAr’s Arbitrator Disclosure Guidelines: Transparency and integrity for Brazil\u2019s thriving arbitration sector.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":284547,"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":"Insights into the CBAr Guidelines on the Arbitrator\u2019s Duty of Disclosure","fb_description":"Insights into CBAr's Arbitrator Disclosure Guidelines: Transparency and integrity for Brazil\u2019s thriving arbitration sector.","fb_image":"284549","twitter_title":"Insights into the CBAr Guidelines on the Arbitrator\u2019s Duty of Disclosure","twitter_description":"Insights into CBAr's Arbitrator Disclosure Guidelines: Transparency and integrity for Brazil\u2019s thriving arbitration sector.","twitter_image":"284549"},"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":[162,205,165,207,210,188,129,161],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-284543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-americas","category-arbitration","category-brazil","category-commercial-arbitration","category-conference-reports","category-legal-insights","category-news","category-world"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284543","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=284543"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284543\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":284555,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/284543\/revisions\/284555"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=284543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=284543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=284543"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=284543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Anna-Katharina Scheffer da Silveira, <\/strong>Lawyer at Adriana Braghetta Advogados<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nOpening by CBAr<\/a> and CAM-CCBC<\/a><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Panel Discussion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n