Brazil / 18 April 2012 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Kanematsu USA Inc. v. ATS - Advanced Telecommunications Systems do Brasil Ltda. / SEC 885
| Country | Brazil |
| Court | Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) |
| Date | 18 April 2012 |
| Parties | Kanematsu USA Inc. v. ATS - Advanced Telecommunications Systems do Brasil Ltda. |
| Case number | SEC 885 |
| Source |
http://www.stj.jus.br (Official website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça) |
| Languages | Portuguese |
| Summary | An American company, Kanematsu Usa Inc. (Kanematsu), entered into a contract with a Brazilian company, Advanced Telecommunications Systems do Brasil Ltda. (ATS), for the purchase and sale of telecommunications equipment. The contract included an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). An award was rendered and the Claimant sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). ATS raised objections to the recognition and enforcement on two different grounds. It argued that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the claim because the contract containing the arbitration clause was unsigned, which demonstrated a lack of consent to arbitration. Granting recognition and enforcement would constitute a violation of the principle of the parties’ autonomy (“autonomia da vontade”) and consequently, a breach of Article 39(II) of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (this article mirrors Article V(2)(b) NYC). The Respondent also argued that the award should not be granted recognition and enforcement because it failed to state reasons, which constitutes a violation of a Brazilian constitutional provision. Superior Tribunal de Justiça refused to grant recognition and enforcement based, for the most part, on the Brazilian Arbitration Act. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça considered that the contract was not signed and that the Respondent had repeatedly objected to the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Thus, it was not possible to establish that the parties had agreed to arbitration in writing. It did not review the objection based on the failure to state reasons. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
