THE AUTHORS:
Luiza de Sousa Braz, Associate at MAMG Advogados
Maria Luiza Mayr Maia, Associate at Bermudes Advogados
Rafaella Farias Pereira, LL.M. Graduate from Queen Mary University of London
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
This article offers an overview of the main arbitration developments in Brazil in 2025, many of which were shaped by the jurisprudence of Brazil’s Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court, referenced hereinafter as the “STJ” or the “Court”). To illustrate these trends, we have selected rulings that have had a notable impact on arbitral practice, along with data released by the STJ and institutional measures adopted by arbitral institutions in response to the Court’s recent decisions.
Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards by the STJ: Two Decades of Consistency
Over the past twenty years, the STJ has consolidated its reputation as an arbitration-friendly court, particularly as it pertains to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards. A recent empirical study conducted by FGV Justiça revealed that between 2005 and March 2025, the STJ granted recognition to foreign awards in 87.7% of the cases submitted, denying only 12.2% of requests—a figure that underscores the Court’s strong adherence to international standards and its commitment to legal certainty in cross-border transactions.
The study examined 127 decisions and confirmed that the STJ’s role in these proceedings is strictly limited to verifying the formal regularity of the foreign award, without revisiting its merits. This approach reflects the principle of non-reviewability enshrined in the New York Convention and the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No. 9.307/1996), both of which guide the Court’s jurisprudence. Grounds for refusal remain exceptional and typically involve procedural defects, such as the absence of a valid arbitration agreement—particularly where signatures evidencing consent are missing—or violations of Brazilian public policy. Other recurrent issues include irregular tribunal composition or awards annulled at the seat of arbitration.
The study also mapped the geographic and thematic origins of recognized awards, highlighting cases from England, the United States, France, and Switzerland, often involving international trade, intellectual property licensing, and complex contractual arrangements. This diversity illustrates Brazil’s growing integration into global commerce and the pivotal role of arbitration in facilitating such relationships and enhancing Brazil’s attractiveness as a hub for international dispute resolution.
A recent case illustrates this consistent approach. In Recognition Procedure N. 1607, ruled on December 2025, the STJ recognized a Ukrainian arbitral award issued against Alcântara Cyclone Space (“ACS”), a binational Brazil–Ukraine company that had already been extinguished and whose obligations were, in part, succeeded by the Federal Union (the Brazilian Government itself). Arguments based on sovereignty, public policy, and the company’s extinction were rejected by the majority, as the Court held that any questions regarding potential State liability should be resolved, if necessary, at the enforcement stage, and did not justify refusing award recognition.
Such a decision reaffirms the STJ’s restrained review in recognition proceedings and its firm adherence to international arbitration standards. By prioritizing predictability and efficiency, the Court contributes to the stability of transnational commercial relations and affirms the country’s commitment to the rule of law in the global arbitration landscape.
No More Tactical Pauses: Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) Reinforces Autonomy Between Arbitration and Enforcement in Brazil
In a defining development for Brazil’s arbitration landscape, the STJ resolved an issue that had generated uncertainty in practice. In Special Appeal N. 2.167.089/RJ, the STJ confirmed that a creditor who holds a valid enforceable debt instrument may pursue enforcement immediately. The presence of an arbitration clause per se does not halt judicial enforcement of an extrajudicial title, enforceable by law.
The underlying dispute concerned unpaid commercial titles issued under an agreement that contained an arbitration clause. The Rio de Janeiro Court of Appeal suspended enforcement of said titles pending an arbitral tribunal’s ruling on the validity of the clause and the underlying contract. The STJ, however, overturned that decision. STJ’s rapporteur for the case, Justice Nancy Andrighi, clarified that “arbitral tribunals decide rights, while state courts enforce them”. In other words, where there is an arbitration agreement, the merits (including issues concerning the validity or existence of the arbitration clause) shall be decided by arbitrators, but only the judiciary has the power to carry out coercive measures such as seizure of assets.
Accordingly, as the Court stressed, a creditor with a valid enforceable title should not be required to commence arbitration merely to obtain a “new” decision confirming an obligation that is already legally enforceable. Such a requirement would have no basis in the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (“BCCP”) and would undermine the purpose of extrajudicial enforceable titles. For that reason, enforcement proceedings and arbitral proceedings may coexist as long as each remains within its proper scope.
Brazilian law sets out the requirements for an enforceable extrajudicial title. Such an instrument must fall within the statutory list (art. 784, BCCP), and the obligation must be quantifiable, certain, and due (arts. 783 and 786, BCCP). Once these criteria are met, direct enforcement can be pursued . A debtor who wishes to interrupt enforcement must submit an objection to the court, usually done through “embargos à execução” (art. 919, BCCP), or through an application for a provisional measure (arts. 294 to 300, BCCP). In either case, to present its objection, the debtor must demonstrate both a likelihood of success of its claim and a risk of irreparable harm if enforcement proceeds. In order to suspend enforcement proceedings filed by private plaintiffs, the debtor must also provide a guarantee of payment (i.e., via deposit, attachment, or claim insurance).
Furthermore, the Court explained that, even where a substantiated objection is made, suspension may occur only if an arbitration proceeding has commenced, and the debtor has submitted a request for suspension to the enforcement judge. However, in the case before the Court in Special Appeal No. 2.167.089/RJ, the debtor had not even filed a request for arbitration. Therefore, no legal basis existed for halting enforcement.
The STJ’s decision reflected a mature understanding of the limits of arbitral jurisdiction and of the judiciary’s essential role in providing coercive relief. Arbitration remains available for genuine disputes on the merits, but it cannot be used as a tool to create procedural delay and postpone payment. Moreover, broader implications include an increase in legal certainty for creditors who rely on prompt enforcement of valid titles, which are essential for many corporate and financial transactions. This may also encourage the earlier commencement of arbitration when substantive issues arise and for cross-border practitioners, the judgment aligns Brazil’s domestic practice with the world’s leading arbitration jurisdictions’ standards.
Jurisdictional Boundaries Between Arbitration and Insolvency
Another important ruling, which brought greater certainty to practice, concerns arbitrations involving companies undergoing judicial reorganization or bankruptcy. In Special Appeal No. 2.163.463/SP, decided in 2025, the STJ partially annulled an arbitral award that had authorized the set-off of reciprocal credits between two contracting parties, one of which was subject to judicial reorganization.
The Court held that, although arbitration may proceed normally even when one of the parties is under judicialreorganization, disputes concerning the payment of credits subject to the reorganization process may fall outside arbitral jurisdiction. Because a set-off constitutes a
form of extinguishing obligations, determining its applicability in relation to credits governed by the recovery plan may involve a non-disposable patrimonial right, thereby failing to satisfy the requirement of objective arbitrability under the Brazilian Arbitration Act. According to the STJ, such matters must be decided exclusively by the reorganization court, given their direct impact on the pari passu treatment of creditors and on the implementation of the court-approved plan.
The ruling confirms that, while arbitral tribunals remain competent to assess the existence and quantum of credits arising from commercial relationships, any repercussion of those credits within insolvency proceedings—including their potential extinguishment by set-off—must be addressed by the judicial reorganization court. In practical terms, the decision reinforces that arbitration and judicial reorganization may coexist, subject to clear jurisdictional boundaries designed to preserve creditor equality and ensure coherence in the insolvency framework.
The Consolidation of Special Rules for Early Production of Evidence in Arbitration
In 2025, the Brazilian arbitral landscape also witnessed the consolidation of special procedures designed to govern the anticipated production of evidence in arbitration. Such regulation stemmed from the fact the anticipated production of evidence a standalone judicial procedure, governed by Arts. 381-383 of the BCCP, aimed at the preservation and collection of evidence independently of a decision on the merits, in order to prevent its loss or deterioration, as well as to facilitate settlement discussions or assess the feasibility of future litigation, thereby raising doubts as to the competent authority to conduct the procedure in the presence of an arbitration agreement.
The initiatives were prompted by the STJ’s landmark ruling in Special Appeal No. 2.023.615/SP, which limited the role of state courts where an arbitration agreement exists to situations involving urgent or precautionary relief. In this sense, the Court clarified that, in the absence of urgency, applications for
anticipated production of evidence fall exclusively within the arbitral forum.
Regulations issued by the Chamber of Arbitration and Mediation of the American Chamber of Commerce (“AMCHAM”) in 2023, the Chamber of Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (“CIESP/FIESP”) in 2024, and, most recently, by the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (“CAM-CCBC”) in 2025 reflect a largely harmonized framework for non-urgent, pre-arbitration evidence taking. Under these regimes, parties may submit requests to an Evidence Arbitrator, who has the authority to organize and order the production of targeted evidence.
There is no limitation on the types of evidence that may be requested: document production, expert examinations, and witness testimony are all available. The Evidence Arbitrator, however, is expressly barred from examining the merits or assessing the probative value of the evidence, which will be evaluated by the arbitral tribunal should a full arbitration be commenced. The Evidence Arbitrator is likewise prohibited from serving on any subsequent tribunal in the same dispute. Their jurisdiction is confined solely to evidence taking and must be exercised on an expedited basis, with proceedings typically expected to conclude within approximately six months, subject to extension.
As reflected in the newly issued rules, the mechanism is designed to compel the production of evidence where such production may facilitate settlement or another appropriate form of dispute resolution, or where prior factual clarification may justify or avoid the initiation of an arbitration. This approach mirrors the logic of the BBCP provisions governing anticipated production of evidence in non-urgent scenarios and confirms that these institutional rules give practical effect to the STJ’s jurisdictional guidance. Taken together, they reinforce that, once arbitration is chosen, arbitral jurisdiction extends even to preliminary evidentiary measures.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Luiza de Sousa Braz has a Master’s degree from the University of São Paulo and is an Associate at MAMG Advogados. She practices both domestic and international arbitration and is a member of BRVYAP’s Executive Committee.
Maria Luiza Mayr Maia is a Master’s student at the State University of Rio de Janeiro and a lawyer at Bermudes Advogados, one of the leading litigation and arbitration firms in Brazil. She is also a member of the BRVYAP Executive Committee.
Rafaella Farias Pereira is a Vienna-based Brazilian lawyer specializing in corporate and commercial contracts and international dispute resolution. She holds an LL.M. in Comparative and International Dispute Resolution from Queen Mary University of London.
*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.
