The text of The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention) was promulgated on March 21 through Decree no. 9,734/2019. Signed in The Hague on November 15, 1965, the Hague Service Convention was originally signed by six states and is now in force in 73 countries. With the enactment of Decree no. 9,734/2019, the Convention will come into effect in Brazil on June 1, 2019.
The exhaustive list of cases for filing interlocutory appeals provided for in article 1,015 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was the subject of a recent review by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in the judgment of Special Repetitive Appeals No. 1.704.520 and No. 1.696.396, which occurred on December 5, 2018.
In a decision handed down at the end of last year in Special Appeal No. 1.639.035/SP, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) established a paradigmatic precedent by reinforcing the theory allowing for the objective extension of arbitration clauses to transactions involving a series of related contracts, where the main contract contains an arbitration clause, even allowing for the setting aside of valid forum selection clauses found in the ancillary contracts.
When the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) decided at the end of last year to reinstate the bank freeze, or fiduciary assignment of receivables, which had been suspended by the court in a judicial reorganization case, it took into account the concept of capital goods provided for in article 49, paragraph 3, of the Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization Law (Law No. 11,101/2005, the “LRF”).
In order to avoid having Brazilian courts produce different decisions on a single issue and seeking to accelerate the resolution of multiple demands dependent on a review of the same legal matter, the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 inaugurated the Ancillary Proceeding for Resolution of Repetitive Claims (IRDR), a procedure provided for in articles 976 through 987 of said law.
In a recent judgment, the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled out the requirement to post bond by a foreign legal entity duly represented in Brazil and who seeks to file a lawsuit in Brazil.[1]
The São Paulo State Court of Appeals (TJSP) has ruled in a recent judgment that the São Paulo State Tax Authority must reimburse costs and procedural expenses incurred by a defendant acquitted in a public civil action for administrative corruption.
The Brazilian Arbitration Law (Federal Law No. 9,307/1996) enshrines, in its article 8, sole paragraph, the so-called principle of jurisdiction over jurisdiction, according to which it is up to the arbitrators to decide on their own jurisdiction (subject to subsequent analysis by the Judiciary, in the scenarios set forth for annulment of the arbitration award). The principle establishes, therefore, a limit on interference by the state judge, in view of the parties' choice of arbitration.
In force since September 5, Ordinance No. 1,189/2018, issued by the Ministry of Justice, establishes new rules and improves those rules that were already in force for the process of creating parental advisory ratings for audiovisual materials...
The Supreme Court of Justice (STJ) recently took a position on a controversial subject that is the subject of doubts and uncertainties: whether the appropriate appeal against decisions rendered with respect to execution and enforcement of judgment is an interlocutory appeal or an appeal.
Among the significant changes in the framework of registered warrants (precatórios) promoted by Constitutional Amendment No. 99, of December 14, 2017, the fourth paragraph of article 101 of the Transitory Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT) stands out, which gives the Federal Government the duty to make available to the states, the Federal District, and municipalities, as well as to their instrumentalities, foundations, and state-owned companies a special credit line for payment of registered warrants submitted to the new special payment system, that is, registered warrants due on March 25, 2015, and those that expire by December 31, 2024, the deadline to settle all these registered warrants.
The new Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) brought in several innovations aimed at ensuring greater effectiveness and speed in proceedings. Among them, article 139, item IV, of the CPC confers on the magistrate the power to "determine all inducive, coercive, mandamus, or subrogatory measures necessary to ensure compliance with a judicial order, including in actions that have as their subject matter a money payment", thus authorizing the application of atypical measures to ensure fulfillment of obligations.