Brazil / 16 August 2006 / Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) / Subway Partners C V v HTP High Technology Foods Corporation / SEC 833
| Country | Brazil |
| Court | Brazil, Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice) |
| Date | 16 August 2006 |
| Parties | Subway Partners C V v HTP High Technology Foods Corporation |
| Case number | SEC 833 |
| Source |
http://www.stj.jus.br (Official Website of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça) |
| Languages | Portuguese |
| Summary | Subway Partners C V (Subway Partners) and HTP High Technology Foods Corporation S/A (HTP) entered into a franchising agreement containing an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA). A dispute arose and an arbitral award was rendered, ex parte, in the United States. The award was confirmed by the District Court for the District of Connecticut. Subway Partners sought recognition and enforcement (“homologação”) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (Superior Court of Justice). HTP opposed recognition and enforcement, arguing that Subway Partners had not presented the original arbitration agreement or a copy of it, nor had it presented a certified copy and a sworn translation of the award as required by Article 37 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (which mirrors Article IV(1) NYC). It further argued that there had been no consent to the arbitration agreement and that there was no evidence that HTP had been properly notified of the arbitral proceedings. It also argued that the Claimant had failed to indicate if it sought recognition and enforcement of the award or of the decision of the District Court confirming the award. Despite the Justice Rapporteur’s opinion in favour of recognition and enforcement, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça denied recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award based on the Brazilian Arbitration Act. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça considered that the lack of evidence demonstrating that HTP had been properly served to appear before the District Court was detrimental to the request for recognition and enforcement. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça held that a party must be served through letter rogatory in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. It also considered it material to its decision that Subway Partners had not included the Rules of the AAA in its claim. |
| affirmed by : |
Attachment (2)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
Unofficial Translation Adobe Acrobat PDF |
