Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo)
Concepts :
|
Available documents (4)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Brazil / 03 April 2014 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. v. Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S.A., Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S.A., Evolution S.A., Bradan S.A., Belopoint S.A. and Triton Equities S.A. / Appeal 0014578-23.2004.8.26.0100
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) Date 03 April 2014 Parties First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. v. Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S.A., Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S.A., Evolution S.A., Bradan S.A., Belopoint S.A. and Triton Equities S.A. Case number Appeal 0014578-23.2004.8.26.0100 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source http://www.tjsp.jus.br (official website of the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo)
Languages Portuguese Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4746&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 06 November 2007 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others / Motion for Clarification 518.393-4/0-01
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) Date 06 November 2007 Parties First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others Case number Motion for Clarification 518.393-4/0-01 Source http://www.tjsp.jus.br (Official website of the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo)
Languages Portuguese Summary In a previous proceeding, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) had granted recognition and enforcement to the award in which an arbitral tribunal had found in favour of First Brands do Brasil Ltda. (First Brands) and other. In the current dispute before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (São Paulo Court of Appeals) Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A and others sought to declare the nullity of the arbitral award. The Court of First Instance had rejected First Brands’ argument that the claim be dismissed without prejudice because the Superior Tribunal de Justiça had already granted recognition and enforcement to the award. Thus, First Brands filed an Interlocutory Appeal before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo seeking an order that it was not possible to challenge the validity of an award after it was granted recognition and enforcement by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. The appellants filed a motion for clarification before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo alleging that the decision dismissing the appeal was contradictory at the point where the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo expounded the legislative intent concerning Articles 32 and 38 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act). The contradiction stemmed from the fact that the decision suggested that there were two distinct ways to challenge a foreign arbitral award based on the same arguments, which was absurd. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo dismissed the motion for clarification. It held that there were enough reasons to conclude that setting aside proceedings were possible despite the existence of an award for which the Superior Tribunal de Justiça granted recognition and enforcement. Thus, the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo affirmed its prior decision, which considered that there may be grounds to set aside an award that are not analyzed during recognition and enforcement proceedings before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. affirmed by : affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1347&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 28 August 2007 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others / Interlocutory Appeal 518.393-4/9-00
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) Date 28 August 2007 Parties First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and Other v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Others Case number Interlocutory Appeal 518.393-4/9-00 Source http://www.tjsp.jus.br (Official website of the Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo)
Languages Portuguese Summary In a previous proceeding, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça had granted recognition and enforcement to the award in which an arbitral tribunal had found in favour of First Brands do Brasil Ltda. (First Brands) and other. In the current dispute before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (São Paulo Court of Appeals) Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A and others sought to declare the nullity of the arbitral award. The Court of First Instance rejected First Brands argument that the claim be dismissed without prejudice because the Superior Tribunal de Justiça had already granted recognition and enforcement to the award. Thus, First Brands filed an Interlocutory Appeal before the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo seeking an order that it was not possible to challenge the validity of an award after it was granted recognition and enforcement by the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo dismissed the appeal based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act) allowing the challenge proceedings to continue before the Brazilian courts. It stated that recognition and enforcement proceedings did not review the content of the arbitral award. Thus, the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo found that the Superior Tribunal de Justiça only analyzes the award on the criteria laid down in Article 38 and 39 of the Arbitration Act (which mirror Article V(1)(2) NYC). Therefore, according to the Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo the Superior Tribunal de Justiça has no competence to decide on the nullity of the arbitral award based on Article 32 of the Arbitration Act unless the criteria outlined in both provisions are the same. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo considered that possible objections dealing with the recognition and enforcement of the foreign award were not the same as the ones to declare a nullity of an award. Thus, this demonstrated that they had different content despite eventually having some overlapping provisions allowing the same objections in both proceedings. Therefore, the interlocutory appeal to dismiss the claims without prejudice was dismissed and the proceedings for setting aside the award continued. affirmed by : see also :
- Brazil / 23 November 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. v STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC / SEC 611
- Brazil / 18 April 2007 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / STP – Petroplus Produtos Automotivos S/A PPA and Petroplus Sul Comércio Exterior S/A PSC v First Brands do Brasil Ltda. and STP do Brasil Ltda. / Motion for Clarification on SEC 611
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1346&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFBrazil / 20 June 2006 / Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) / Carlos Alberto de Oliveira Andrade and CA de Oliveira Andrade Comércio Importação e Exportação Ltda v Renault S/A and Renault do Brasil Comércio e Participações Ltda. / Appeal 985413-0/1
Country Brazil Court Brazil, Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (Court of Justice of São Paulo) Date 20 June 2006 Parties Carlos Alberto de Oliveira Andrade and CA de Oliveira Andrade Comércio Importação e Exportação Ltda v Renault S/A and Renault do Brasil Comércio e Participações Ltda. Case number Appeal 985413-0/1 Source http://www.tjsp.jus.br (Official website of Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo)
Languages Portuguese Summary The Claimants were engaged in the import, sale and maintenance of Renault vehicles in Brazil. Renault S/A declared its intention to terminate its contract with the Claimants after which, the parties agreed to a “Protocol” establishing a phased out termination. Subsequently, conflicts arose from the execution of the Protocol and the parties signed a “Private Instrument for Settlement and other Agreements”, providing for arbitration pursuant to the International Chamber of Commerce Rules of Arbitration (ICC Rules). The parties commenced arbitration in New York and obtained an award. Subsequently, the Claimants initiated three different proceedings before the Brazilian courts. In the case at hand, the Claimants sought declaratory relief to the effect that the arbitral award was non-existent. The Court of First Instance dismissed the claim without prejudice due to the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Claimants appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the Brazilian courts had jurisdiction because the Respondents were domiciled in Brazil and because there was a clause in the contract electing Brazil as the forum for dispute settlement and making Brazilian law applicable to the dispute. According to the Claimants, Article V(I) NYC also established that Brazilian courts would have jurisdiction in such a case. Alternatively, the Claimants requested a declaration that the award was null and void for failing to state reasons, as was required by Brazilian law. The Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo (São Paulo Court of Appeals) dismissed the claim without prejudice due to the existence of the arbitration agreement based on Article 4 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (the Arbitration Act), which has similar but not identical language to Article II (1)(2) NYC (it states: “Article 4- An arbitration clause is an agreement by which the parties to a contract undertake to submit to arbitration the disputes which may arise with respect to that contract; (1) the arbitration clause shall be in writing and it can be inserted in the main contract or in a document to which it refers”). The Tribunal de Justiça asserted that it was not possible to review the merits of the claim because there was a valid arbitration clause pursuant to Article 4 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act. It also considered that an annulment based on failure to state reasons must show an absolute absence of reasons; the brevity of reasons was not enough to allow an annulment. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=1341&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF