In Brazil, although most disputes are resolved through the judiciary, the use of domestic and international arbitration as a method of dispute resolution has been steadily growing, especially in more sophisticated cases involving significant amounts. The establishment of an ICC office in São Paulo and the development of national arbitration chambers have been attracting many users to arbitration in Brazil. International arbitration, although growing, is still primarily used in cases involving foreign parties or in matters related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.

Various industries have resorted to arbitration in Brazil, both in cases where arbitration is mandatory and where it is optional. Among the sectors that require arbitration as a means of dispute resolution is the energy sector. For publicly held companies listed at a certain level on the São Paulo Stock Exchange (B3), arbitration is also mandatory for corporate matters.

In the oil and gas and construction sectors, although arbitration is generally not mandatory, it has been widely used.

There is a high level of activity in these sectors, both for domestic and international arbitration, as the volume of business is increasing. In addition, several sectors have been facing specific crises, which has led to a rise in disputes.

For international arbitrations, ICC Brazil is currently the most commonly used arbitral institution. However, other national institutions are also in high demand, such as the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce (CAM-CCBC), the Arbitration Centre of the American Chamber of Commerce (AMCHAM), the Market Arbitration Chamber (B3), and the Arbitration and Mediation Center of CIESP/FIESP, among others.

Under Brazilian arbitration law, arbitrations seated in another country are considered international arbitrations. Prior to the enforcement of the decisions arising from such arbitrations, the parties must apply to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which is the competent authority to recognise foreign arbitral awards in Brazil. Afterwards, the enforcement of the international arbitral award must be filed exclusively before the federal courts.

For domestic arbitration, several states of Brazil have established first-instance and appellate courts specialised in arbitration-related disputes, as is the case in the state of São Paulo.

The Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No 9.307/1996) governs both domestic and international arbitration seated in Brazil. Although inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law – particularly in core principles such as party autonomy, separability of the arbitration agreement, competence-competence, limited judicial intervention, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards – it is not a verbatim adoption, and there are several notable differences.

The Act does not distinguish between domestic and international arbitration in its structure or provisions, creating a monistic system. It also does not provide an express definition of public policy, leaving interpretation to the courts. Moreover, unlike the Model Law, the Brazilian Act allows parties to request clarifications of the award (Article 30), permitting the tribunal to correct material errors or address omissions without revisiting the merits.

Other divergences include (i) stricter formal requirements for arbitration agreements (Article 4), (ii) the absence of an express rule regarding waiver of procedural objections, (iii) more limited regulation of interim measures – although the 2015 reform expanded the tribunal’s powers in this regard (Article 22-B), (iv) the right to challenge an arbitrator but without specific provisions on the procedure (Article 14), and (v) the possibility of court appointment of arbitrators in case of impasse (Article 7(4)).

Despite these differences, the Brazilian Arbitration Act remains fully consistent with international best practices and is widely regarded as arbitration-friendly.

In the past three years there has been some discussion on the amendment of the Brazilian Arbitration Law regarding independence and impartiality of arbitrators and the duty of disclosure, and on the enactment of a Bill to modify material aspects of the civil liability of administrators and controlling shareholders of joint-stock companies, and procedural aspects of class arbitration.

Although the subjects are pending, they seem to have stalled due to backlash of the Brazilian arbitral community to safeguard best practices in the country. Today, the most significant ongoing discussion is about the proposed reform of the Brazilian Civil Code, which is a very significant amendment that has been highly criticised by several sectors of the Brazilian legal community. It is manifest that arbitration may be substantially impacted once the reform introduces important changes in many areas. For example, it proposes that limited liability companies expressly define in their corporate documents whether disputes involving partners and the company shall be resolved through arbitration, encouraging earlier and more transparent choices regarding dispute resolution. Further, recent procedural reforms affecting forum selection in contracts may also influence arbitration clauses, particularly in ensuring judicial co-operation, such as for interim relief. Clauses misaligned with these new standards may face enforceability challenges. In addition, the reform seeks to clarify the criteria for determining the international nature of contracts and proposes updates to insurance law, which could expand the scope of arbitrable matters – especially in complex, cross-border or reinsurance disputes. These changes are still under discussion but are viewed as highly relevant, with the potential to reshape how arbitration is used in corporate, contractual and cross-border contexts in Brazil.

According to Brazilian arbitration law, individuals with legal capacity to enter into contracts may resort to arbitration to settle disputes involving disposable property rights. Furthermore, the arbitration clause must be established in writing and must refer to a specific contract. The clause may be included within the contract itself or in a separate document that refers to such contract.

Additionally, in certain cases, specific requirements must be met for the arbitration clause to be enforceable. For example, in adhesion contracts, the arbitration clause will only be effective if the adhering party initiates the arbitration or expressly agrees to its use, provided that such agreement is in writing, either in a separate document or highlighted in bold, with a specific signature or acknowledgment for that clause. In labour law cases, the express consent of the employee is also required for arbitration to be used.

When a dispute involves non-disposable property rights, it cannot be submitted to arbitration. In addition, certain other matters cannot be subject to arbitration, such as issues related to tax law, family and succession law, consumer law, criminal law, corporate recovery and bankruptcy proceedings.

Brazilian courts have adopted a pro-arbitration and enforcement-friendly approach toward arbitration agreements. Although the Brazilian Arbitration Act does not expressly define a rule for determining the law governing arbitration agreements, courts typically rely on principles of party autonomy. If the parties have designated a governing law, this will generally be respected. In the absence of such a choice, courts tend to apply either the law of the seat of arbitration or the law governing the underlying contract, depending on the context and the intention of the parties.

Regarding enforcement, Brazilian courts consistently uphold valid arbitration agreements and apply the principle of competence-competence, recognising that arbitral tribunals have the initial authority to rule on their own jurisdiction. However, courts may perform a prima facie analysis of the arbitration clause – particularly in cases involving non-signatories or pre-arbitral interim relief – to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to support the clause’s applicability.

As a general rule, arbitration agreements are enforced in Brazil, and courts will decline jurisdiction over disputes covered by a valid arbitration clause and compel the refusing party to participate in the arbitration proceeding, reinforcing the country’s strong support for arbitration and legal certainty in both domestic and international contexts.

Brazilian law adopts the principle of separability, as expressly provided in Article 8 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act, which states that the arbitration clause is autonomous from the main contract. Therefore, the nullity of the underlying contract does not necessarily affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. It is up to the arbitral tribunal – either ex officio or upon request of the parties – to rule on issues concerning the existence, validity and effectiveness of both the arbitration clause and the main contract.

At the same time, Brazilian courts may conduct a prima facie analysis of the arbitration clause before the arbitral tribunal is constituted. This limited judicial review is particularly relevant when pre-arbitral interim relief measures are sought against non-signatories, or when there is a challenge to the applicability of the arbitration clause itself. The courts assess whether there is reasonable doubt or initial evidence of consent sufficient to provisionally support jurisdiction, without making a definitive ruling.

Brazilian law allows any individual with legal capacity and who is trusted by the parties to serve as an arbitrator. Accordingly, the parties have the autonomy to appoint arbitrators of their choice, provided these requirements are met.

In Brazil, the parties may, by mutual agreement, establish the procedure for selecting the arbitrators or adopt the rules of an institutional arbitral body or specialised entity.

Furthermore, the parties may, by mutual agreement, waive the application of any provision in the rules of the institutional arbitral body or specialised entity that limits the choice of a sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator, or tribunal president to the institution’s list of arbitrators. The institution’s competent bodies are authorised to oversee the appointment process. In cases of deadlock or multi-party arbitration, the applicable rules of the institution elected by the parties in the arbitration agreement must be observed.

Courts in Brazil may intervene in the selection of arbitrators in limited circumstances, particularly when the arbitration agreement is incomplete, silent on the appointment procedure, or when one party resists the initiation of arbitration. According to Article 7 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act, the interested party may request the court to summon the other party to a special hearing. If no agreement is reached, the judge may define the terms of the arbitration and appoint a sole arbitrator, ensuring respect for any provisions in the clause. This judicial intervention is procedural in nature and aims solely to enforce the arbitration agreement and to enable the commencement of arbitration, without interfering in the tribunal’s independence or the merits of the dispute.

According to Articles 14 to 16 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act, arbitrators may be challenged if they lack civil capacity, if they do not comply with the requisites stipulated in the arbitration agreement, if there are justifiable doubts on their impartiality and/or independence to hear the case, and lastly if they have any relationship with the parties or the dispute that would constitute grounds for disqualification or suspicion of a judge under the Civil Procedure Code.

Before accepting the appointment, arbitrators have a duty to disclose any facts that could raise justified doubts about their impartiality or independence. Challenges are generally only allowed based on events arising after the appointment, unless the arbitrator was not directly appointed by the party or the grounds for challenge became known only afterwards.

The procedure in Brazil is simpler than under the UNCITRAL Model Law and is typically governed by institutional rules, which often designate the president of the arbitral institution or a specific internal body to decide on challenges, ensuring greater efficiency and predictability.

Under Brazilian law, arbitrators are subject to a duty of impartiality and independence, as set forth in Article 14 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act. Although the statute refers to both concepts – similarly to the UNCITRAL Model Law – the majority view in Brazilian legal scholarship holds that independence is merely an external expression of impartiality, and thus not a separate or cumulative requirement.

The law also establishes a clear duty of disclosure. Before accepting an appointment, the arbitrator must disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justified doubts regarding their impartiality or independence.

Further guidance is offered by the CBAr Guidelines on Arbitrator Disclosure (2023), issued by the Comitê Brasileiro de Arbitragem (CBAr). Although these guidelines are soft law, they reflect the prevailing practices and expectations of the Brazilian arbitration community. They emphasise that the duty of disclosure is continuous, and that disclosure is not an admission of bias, but rather a mechanism to ensure transparency and preserve trust in the arbitral process.

Major Brazilian institutions, such as CAM-CCBC and CAMARB, incorporate these principles into their procedural rules, requiring arbitrators to sign declarations of independence and disclose any relevant circumstances that could affect their neutrality.

Under Brazilian law, an arbitral tribunal may and must rule on challenges to its own jurisdiction, in accordance with the principle of competence-competence.

This principle is expressly recognised in Article 8, sole paragraph, of the Brazilian Arbitration Act. Additionally, the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, in Article 485, item VII, provides that the court shall dismiss the case without a resolution on the merits when there is an arbitration agreement and the arbitral tribunal affirms its jurisdiction. This reinforces the authority of arbitral tribunals to determine the scope and validity of their own jurisdiction.

The competence-competence principle is also consistently upheld by Brazilian courts. For example, the Superior Court of Justice, in Appeal No 1.614.070/SP, reaffirmed that it is for the arbitrators – and not the judiciary – to rule, in the first place, on their own jurisdiction when an arbitration agreement exists.

Therefore, in Brazil, the application of the competence-competence principle is well established both in legislation and in case law.

In Brazil, courts may examine the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in four situations:

• when a lawsuit is filed despite an arbitration clause in the contract, and the defendant invokes it to seek dismissal;
• in annulment proceedings of an arbitral award, based on item I of Article 32 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act;
• in recognition of foreign arbitral awards, under item II of Article 38 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act; and
• in jurisdictional conflicts between arbitral tribunals and state courts, which are resolved by the Superior Court of Justice.

Despite these possibilities, court intervention tends to be limited. A 2024 study by Fundação Getulio Vargas shows that, at the appellate level, 69% of annulment actions were dismissed. The most frequently cited ground for annulment was the alleged invalidity of the arbitration agreement, as provided in item I of Article 32 of the Arbitration Act.

Since the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal may only be challenged through annulment proceedings, parties are allowed to resort to the courts solely after the arbitral award (partial or final) has been issued, based on item I of Article 32 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act.

Brazilian courts usually adopt a deferential approach when reviewing matters of admissibility and jurisdiction, which means that, in general, priority is given to the arbitral tribunal’s authority to decide on its own jurisdiction and the admissibility of claims. These matters are typically addressed through a partial award and are subject to the scrutiny established under Article 32. As such, the praxis is that the judiciary does not review the merits of these decisions, respecting the principle of competence-competence and the autonomy of the arbitral process.

In the experience of the authors, Brazilian courts are generally reluctant to proceed with judicial proceedings when one of the parties has breached the arbitration agreement and the other party has objected to it. Brazilian courts will only continue with the judicial proceeding if the defendant has waived the right to arbitrate, which may even occur tacitly (for example, allowing the invocation of the arbitration agreement in a preliminary objection).

Brazilian Arbitration Act, under Article 3, establishes party autonomy as a cornerstone of arbitration. Nevertheless, despite the consensual nature of arbitration enshrined in the law itself, both case law and legal scholarship have recognised, in exceptional circumstances, the possibility of extending the effects of the arbitration agreement to non-signatory third parties. Such exceptions arise mostly in situations involving the succession of contractual relationships, interconnected or linked contracts, or the application of the group of companies’ doctrine.

In Brazil, once the arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the arbitrators are authorised to grant any preliminary or interim relief requested by the parties, pursuant to the sole paragraph of Article 22-B of the Brazilian Arbitration Act. Such relief shall be binding while in force, but shall be reviewed (confirmed, rejected or modified) in the final arbitral award on the merits.

Although the possibility of granting urgent relief measures in arbitration is expressly provided for, there is no explicit provision as to which specific measures may be requested. However, based on the experience of the authors, by way of example, the interim relief may require a party to maintain or reinstate the status quo, take steps to prevent present or future harm or prejudice to the integrity of the arbitral proceedings, adopt measures to safeguard assets that could be used to satisfy a future arbitral award, or preserve evidence that is potentially relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.

According to Article 22-A of the Brazilian Arbitration Act, the parties may resort to the Judiciary for the granting of preliminary or interim relief measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, it shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on such requests.

There is no prohibition under Brazilian Arbitration Act against the judiciary granting interim relief in support of foreign-seated arbitrations. To date, there have been no reported cases challenging the admissibility of such relief.

The Brazilian Arbitration Act does not provide for nor forbids the use of emergency arbitrators. However, certain arbitration institutions operating nationally – such as CAM-CCBC – allow the appointment of emergency arbitrators. The decisions rendered by emergency arbitrators are binding while in force but may be subject to review by the arbitral tribunal once constituted. The types of relief that may be granted by the emergency arbitrator are those outlined in response to 6.1 Types of Relief.

Once an emergency arbitrator has been appointed, the judiciary is not expected to intervene.

Security for costs is not expressly recognised under Brazilian law. However, considering that a request for security for costs constitutes a form of preliminary relief – and given that, as noted, there is no explicit provision in the law regarding the specific content of such relief – the arbitral tribunal may grant it, provided that the requirements of fumus boni iuris (appearance of good right) and periculum in mora (risk of harm in delay) are met.

The core legal framework for arbitration in Brazil is established by the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No 9.307/1996).

Party autonomy is the fundamental principle guiding arbitral proceedings, provided that essential guarantees such as due process and equal treatment are upheld. The arbitral tribunal is likewise empowered to manage the procedure in the manner it considers most appropriate for the circumstances of each case.

The Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to arbitration proceedings.

According to the Brazilian Arbitration Act, arbitrators have the following duties: to act with impartiality, independence, competence, diligence, and discretion (Article 13, §6); to disclose any facts that may give rise to justified doubts concerning their impartiality or independence (Article 14, §1); and to respect the principles of adversarial proceedings, equality of the parties, impartiality of the arbitrator and freedom of conviction (Article 21, §2).

On the other hand, the Arbitration Act defines the arbitrator as a judge of fact and law, granting arbitrators the following powers: to issue final awards on the merits, which are not subject to appeal or judicial confirmation (Articles 18 and 23); to decide on issues related to the existence, validity and effectiveness of the arbitration agreement (Article 8); and to take party depositions, hear witnesses and order expert examinations or other evidence deemed necessary (Article 22).

Pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 3, of the Brazilian Arbitration Act, the parties may be represented by legal counsel, while always preserving their right to designate any person of their choice to represent or assist them in the arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, there are no specific qualifications or additional requirements for legal representatives to act in arbitrations seated in Brazil. It is not even a requirement to be a qualified lawyer in Brazil to represent a party, which allows foreign lawyers to appear in arbitration proceedings without any further qualifications.

With respect to the submission of evidence, the Brazilian Arbitration Act merely provides that the arbitral tribunal may hear the parties, examine witnesses and order expert examinations or any other evidence it deems necessary, either upon request of the parties or ex officio (Article 22). Any additional rules governing the submission of evidence may be agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal.

Arbitral proceedings seated in Brazil are governed by flexible and party-driven rules of evidence, rather than the formal evidentiary rules that apply in domestic judicial proceedings.

Arbitrators lack the authority to compel third parties to produce documents or to ensure the attendance of witnesses or experts. However, Article 22, §2, of the Brazilian Arbitration Act permits the arbitral tribunal to request the judicial authority to compel the uncooperative witness to appear, upon proof of the existence of the arbitration agreement.

In addition, Article 22-C of the Brazilian Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal may issue an arbitral letter (carta arbitral) requesting the national judicial authority to perform or order the performance, within its territorial jurisdiction, of an act requested by the arbitrator – which may include, for example, the production of a document by a third party.

In Brazil, arbitral proceedings are confidential unless otherwise provided by law (such as in disputes involving state owned entities) or by express agreement of the parties. The duty of confidentiality is provided in the rules for most arbitral institutions and applies to arbitrators, tribunal secretaries, experts, the parties and any other involved individuals who are prohibited from disclosing any information accessed during the proceedings. A notable exception to the rule refers to the presentation of documents related to arbitration in judicial proceedings, provided such disclosure is necessary to protect a party’s rights.

Moreover, recent decisions from the São Paulo Court of Justice have nuanced the application of confidentiality in judicial proceedings related to arbitration. While Article 189, item IV, of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code provides that court proceedings involving arbitration are to be conducted under judicial secrecy, the court has emphasised that blanket confidentiality may hinder legal development by preventing the creation of jurisprudence in arbitration-related matters. As a result, courts have adopted a more restrictive interpretation, applying confidentiality only to specific documents and pieces of evidence directly related to the arbitration, rather than to the entire court record.

In Brazil, arbitral awards must meet specific legal requirements set forth in the Arbitration Act. The award must be in writing and include:

• a report with the parties’ names and a summary of the dispute;
• the reasoning, addressing factual and legal issues, and stating whether the arbitrators decided ex aequo et bono;
• the operative part, resolving the submitted issues and setting deadlines if applicable; and
• the date and place of issuance.

The award must be signed by the sole arbitrator or all tribunal members. If any arbitrator cannot or refuses to sign, the presiding arbitrator must certify the reason. In tribunals with multiple arbitrators, decisions are made by majority vote; if there is no majority, the presiding arbitrator’s vote prevails. Dissenting arbitrators may issue separate opinions.

The award must be issued within the timeframe agreed by the parties in the arbitration clause or by reference to the rules of an arbitral institution. In the absence of such agreement, the default limit is six months from the establishment of the tribunal or substitution of an arbitrator.

There are no specific provisions in the Brazilian Arbitration Act limiting the types of remedies that may be awarded, but arbitral awards must comply with Brazilian public policy and the mandatory rules of law. Thus, while arbitral tribunals have broad powers to grant effective relief, those powers remain bound by the legal framework and limitations applicable in judicial proceedings. As punitive damages are not recognised under Brazilian Law, they could be awarded depending on the law applicable to the merits of the arbitration.

In practice, arbitral tribunals often grant interest and costs, but the specific allocation depends on the parties’ agreement, procedural rules and the breadth of the tribunal’s discretion. Article 27 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act requires that the arbitral award determine the allocation of arbitration costs and expenses, including, where applicable, amounts arising from bad-faith litigation. Most institutional rules likewise confer broad discretion on the arbitral tribunal to allocate costs between the parties. It should be noted that the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code provides for attorneys’ success fees, which are payable by the losing party to the prevailing party’s counsel, and although not automatically applicable to arbitration, domestic parties may also include that provision in the arbitration cause or terms of reference.

Interest and monetary adjustment may be awarded by the arbitral tribunal if provided for in the contract or under the applicable substantive law. For instance, Article 389 of the Brazilian Civil Code establishes that, if the contract does not specify a correction index, an official index known as IPCA-E must be applied by the court or arbitral tribunal.

Brazilian Arbitration Law does not provide for appeals on arbitral awards (it actually forbids them), leaving parties with three resources:

• Clarifications by the arbitral tribunal – under Article 30, within five days of receiving the award (or another agreed period), a party may directly request the arbitral tribunal to correct material errors or to clarify obscurities, contradictions, doubts or omissions in the decision. This mechanism does not alter the merits of the award.
• Annulment of the award – Article 33 establishes the procedure for seeking annulment before the courts. The request must be filed within 90 days from receipt of the arbitral award or the decision on clarifications and must follow the general rules of civil procedure.
1. It should be noted that Article 32 sets out limited grounds for annulment, which include: (i) an invalid arbitration agreement, (ii) lack of capacity of the arbitrator(s), (iii) violation of due process as per Article 21(2), that the award is issued outside (iv) the scope of the arbitration agreement or (v) the deadline set forth by the law or agreement of the parties, (vi) lacking formal requirements as per Article 26, or (vii) under malfeasance or corruption.

• Judicial referral for supplementation – Article 33(4) establishes that, if the award omits a point that should have been decided, the court may, instead of annulling the award, refer it back to the tribunal for supplementation, as it occurred in a recent precedent from the Courts of São Paulo on the Appeal 1114872-02.2023.8.26.0100.

In Brazil, parties cannot agree to expand or exclude the grounds for judicial challenge of an arbitral award beyond what is established by law. The Brazilian Arbitration Act does not allow appeals on arbitral awards, and judicial intervention is strictly limited to the annulment of the award on the specific grounds listed in Article 32 of the Act. These grounds are considered matters of public policy and cannot be waived or altered by the parties to an agreement. While parties have broad autonomy to shape the arbitral procedure, including the choice of rules and applicable law, they cannot waive the right to seek annulment on statutory grounds, nor can they create additional avenues for appeal not contemplated by the legislation.

Judicial review of the merits of an arbitral award is not permitted. The Brazilian Arbitration Act adopts a deferential standard, under which courts may not re-examine the facts or legal reasoning underlying the arbitral decision. This approach reflects the principle of finality and autonomy of arbitration in Brazilian law. As a result, arbitral awards are generally respected and enforced as final decisions.

Brazil has signed, ratified, and fully incorporated the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards into its domestic legal system. The Convention was ratified in 2002 and was incorporated through Decree No 4,311/2002. Brazil adopted the Convention with the two standard reservations permitted under Article I (3):

• the reciprocity reservation, meaning it will apply the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state; and
• the commercial reservation, limiting its application to disputes considered commercial under Brazilian law.

Since ratification, Brazilian courts have consistently applied the Convention to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards, subject to the limited refusal grounds set forth in Article V of the Convention and in accordance with the Brazilian Arbitration Act.

To be enforced, a foreign award must first be recognised by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) through a proceeding called homologação. Recognition may only be refused on the exhaustive grounds listed in Articles 38 and 39 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act and Article V of the New York Convention, including: incapacity of the parties, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice or due process, award rendered beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, procedural irregularities, or if the award is not yet binding, has been annulled or suspended at the seat. Additionally, recognition may also be denied if the subject matter is not arbitrable under Brazilian law or if the award violates national public policy.

Although Brazilian law provides that recognition may be denied if the award has been annulled at the seat, the STJ has not adopted a consistent position on the matter. In some cases, the STJ has refused recognition where annulment was final in the seat (eg, SEC 5.782/EX), while in others it has granted recognition despite pending or concluded annulment proceedings (eg, SEC 611/EX). The court does not reassess the foreign court’s reasoning but may weigh whether the annulment is compatible with Brazilian public policy.

When annulment proceedings are still pending abroad, the STJ may choose to suspend the recognition proceeding or continue it, depending on the circumstances and arguments presented.

In respect of sovereign immunity, Brazilian courts recognise that state entities may waive immunity by agreeing to arbitration. Once waived, immunity from jurisdiction is lost, and enforcement against state assets may be allowed, subject to restrictions on assets used for public purposes.

Brazilian courts adopt a pro-enforcement and arbitration-friendly approach toward the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, both domestic and foreign. When it comes to public policy, Brazilian courts interpret this concept narrowly and consistently emphasise that only clear and serious violations of Brazilian domestic public policy can justify denial of recognition or enforcement. Public policy is understood primarily in the domestic sense, not in its broader or international version, and does not include mere divergence from Brazilian legal standards or public interest considerations.

The STJ has repeatedly stated that enforcement cannot be refused simply because the foreign award contradicts Brazilian substantive law. Instead, refusal is permitted only in exceptional cases, such as where the award violates fundamental principles of due process, morality, sovereignty or the constitutional order. This cautious and limited use of the public policy exception reflects Brazil’s commitment to the international enforcement regime and legal certainty in cross-border arbitration.

The Brazilian Arbitration Act does not include any provisions for class action or group arbitration.

Legal counsel acting in arbitration proceedings in Brazil are subject to the Brazilian Bar Association’s Code of Ethics, which applies regardless of whether the dispute is resolved in court or through arbitration.

Among the duties of conduct set forth in the Brazilian Bar Association’s Code of Ethics are the duty: to preserve the honour and dignity of the legal profession, safeguarding its essential and indispensable nature; to act with independence, honesty, propriety, truthfulness, loyalty, dignity, and in good faith; to inform the client of any potential risks associated with their claims and the possible consequences of the legal action and the chosen legal strategy; to maintain professional confidentiality, among others.

With respect to arbitrators, as previously mentioned, the Brazilian Arbitration Act establishes the duties to respect the principles of due process, equal treatment of the parties, arbitrator impartiality, and freedom of conviction, as well as the obligation to disclose any facts that may give rise to justified doubts regarding their impartiality or independence. In addition, certain arbitration institutions operating at the national level – such as CAM-CCBC – have their own Codes of Ethics that arbitrators must observe. In the case of CAM-CCBC, its Code of Ethics imposes several duties on arbitrators, including the duty of independence, impartiality, diligence, competence, availability, disclosure and confidentiality.

Brazil does not currently have specific legislation that regulates third-party funding in arbitration. There are no statutory prohibitions or express restrictions on the use of third-party funding in arbitral proceedings seated in Brazil. However, for purposes of conflict checks by arbitrators, some arbitral institutions commonly request that the parties disclose whether the claim is being financed by a third party and, if so, identify the funder.

The Brazilian Arbitration Act does not address the possibility of consolidating arbitral proceedings. However, the rules of certain arbitration institutions do provide for such a possibility. By way of example, the Rules of CAM-B3 establish that, when a request for arbitration is submitted involving the same subject matter or cause of action as another ongoing proceeding, the President of the Chamber, after hearing the parties and considering the circumstances and the progress made in the pending case, may order the consolidation of the proceedings for joint adjudication. Such consolidation is only allowed during the evidentiary phase of the arbitration. Therefore, under the rules of CAM-B3, the authority to consolidate related proceedings does not lie with the arbitrators, but rather with the President of the Chamber. The judiciary is not expected to intervene in matters concerning the consolidation of arbitral proceedings.

Under Brazilian law, arbitration agreements are generally binding only on the signatory parties.

However, as explained in 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties, Brazilian courts and arbitral tribunals have, in exceptional circumstances, extended the effects of arbitration agreements or awards to third parties, based mostly on the following doctrines: contractual relationships, interconnected or linked contracts, or group of companies. Generally, Brazilian courts have no jurisdiction to bind foreign third parties to an arbitration agreement or award.