Avec la promulgation de la loi n° 14.112/2020 entrée en vigueur le 23 janvier 2021, le Brésil adopte la loi type de la Commissions des Nations Unies pour le Droit Commercial International (« CNUDCI ») sur l’insolvabilité internationale de 1997 (la « Loi Type »), devenant ainsi le 49ème Etat à le faire.
The financial constraints caused by the coronavirus has affected the world’s economy and its outlook is still unknown and gloomy. Companies from all industries worldwide have been taking all sorts of measures to mitigate losses, preserve cash flow and, ultimately, survive. Just like other companies around the globe, the coronavirus has pushed many struggling Brazilian companies over the edge and into bankruptcy.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York was recently presented in In re Rede Energia, S.A.with the question of whether a confirmed Brazilian reorganization plan for Rede Energia, S.A. should be enforced in the United States.
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought disruption and economic hardship to several businesses around the globe. In Brazil, the effects of lockdown and restriction measures by the Governments have caused numerous companies to file for bankruptcy or judicial reorganisation, the latter being the legal restructuring instrument which aims to assist companies to continue their activities and avoid becoming bankrupt.
Relevant Aspects of the Judicial Reorganisation process
Brazilian companies have increasingly chosen arbitration as their preferred method for resolving domestic and international disputes. Now the impact of COVID-19 in Brazil has caused a sharp increase in insolvencies, and there is no expectation of a quick turnaround in the next months and, possibly, years to come. What, then, are the potential effects of Brazilian insolvency proceedings on arbitration in Brazil and abroad?
Are arbitration agreements affected by the opening of insolvency proceedings?
Brazilian companies have increasingly chosen arbitration as their preferred method for resolving domestic and international disputes. Now the impact of COVID-19 in Brazil has caused a sharp increase in insolvencies, and there is no expectation of a quick turnaround in the next months and, possibly, years to come. What, then, are the potential effects of Brazilian insolvency proceedings on arbitrations in Brazil and abroad? We provide our insights in the document below.
Empresas brasileiras têm optado por resolver disputas nacionais e internacionais via arbitragem. Mais recentemente, os impactos econômicos do COVID-19 no Brasil têm causado um aumento considerável do número de recuperações judiciais e falências. Sem expectativa de que essa tendência seja revertida dentro dos próximos meses e, possivelmente, anos, é oportuno indagar: quais seriam os efeitos causados pela nova onda de insolvências em arbitragens brasileiras e internacionais? Veja nossos comentários no documento abaixo.
The Federative Republic of Brazil is the largest country in South America and the world’s fifth largest country, both by land mass (almost 8.6 million square kilometers) and population (more than 200 million people). It is the only lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) country in otherwise Spanish-speaking Latin America and the largest lusophone country in the world. Brazil is a member of the G20, and one of the BRICS countries, along with Russia, India, China and South Africa. The country’s Constitution serves as the foundation of the Brazilian legal framework and sets forth fundamental rights.
Although in some jurisdictions arbitration is a long-established form of alternative dispute resolution, this mechanism has only recently been regulated in Brazil. The Brazilian Commercial Code, enacted in 1850, already included a few sparse provisions regarding commercial arbitration, but there were no references to specific rules. It was not until 1996 that Brazil passed its first specific arbitration statute, Law No. 9,307/96 (Arbitration Law).
Em sessão realizada em 27 de abril de 2022, a Segunda Seção do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) julgou o Recurso Especial nº 1655705/SP, cujo acórdão recém-divulgado impôs a forma de pagamento fixada em Plano de Recuperação Judicial (PRJ) a determinado credor que não fez parte da recuperação judicial e pretendia cobrar o seu crédito individualmente.