Mediation in business crises, specifically in judicial recovery, was well received by recent Brazilian legal changes, in two crucial forms, prior (antecedent) to a judicial recovery process and during its course, also foreseeing the possibility of pre-procedural and procedural phases of disputes between the partners and shareholders of a company in difficulty or in judicial reorganization; in conflicts involving concessionaires or permit holders of public services undergoing judicial recovery; and in the event of extra-bankruptcy claims against companies undergoing judicial recovery during the period of public calamity, in a sophisticated system that aims to cover different business crisis situations using mediation and conciliation. However, like all new initiatives, the use of mediation and conciliation in crises and judicial recovery requires more expressive use of them, to identify the challenges, the position of Brazilian higher Courts on them, and the necessary changes to advance. But some points are already visible and they will be discussed in this article. This article also seeks to demystify the belief that mediation in the recovery of business crises is focused only on debt solvency. In this field, mediation can have a broader spectrum of action, placing the critical points that led to the crisis and promoting relevant changes in business management.

The final text of Chapter IV of the ICPT, adopted by Resolution A/RES/732(XXIV) of the General Assembly of UNWTO at its twenty-fourth session, is a great and collective achievement. In this text I want to analyze the main characteristics of the ICPT text, especially its recommendations, but at the same time highlight the origins of this text. To present its origins is to present our preparatory research about the principles already in place about alternative means for the international consumer settlement of disputes in general. The ICPT is a soft law instrument, but with great impact. After work in negotiations at the OAS and the Hague Conference of International Private Law, I am convinced that the way used on the UNWTO ICPT, with a soft law approach, but with the engagement of the States, is a good way to be followed and give a chance to a Framework Convention on the future.

This article examines the role of arbitration in Brazil’s energy sector, emphasizing its importance in ensuring legal certainty, efficiency, and technical expertise in dispute resolution. It highlights the evolution of arbitration within the Electric Energy Trading Chamber (CCEE) and the recent regulatory reforms introduced by ANEEL, which enhance flexibility, transparency, and competitiveness among arbitral institutions. Given the sector’s complexity and inherent risks, arbitration emerges as a crucial mechanism for maintaining market stability and investor confidence amid ongoing structural and regulatory transformations.

This paper aims to analyze the extent of the arbitral institution’s powers to render prima facie decisions on jurisdiction on multiparty arbitrations. In order to do so, this paper provides an overview of the provisions of the B3 MAC Rules, HKIAC Rules, and ICC Rules, to then analyze a Paradigmatic Case under the B3 MAC Rules, in which the arbitral tribunal reversed the previous decision of the MAC regarding the conformity of the representation of the parties and whether the parties were bound by the arbitration agreement or not.

The present paper aims to weave a comparative analysis of international practices based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration with the Brazilian arbitration system and its consequences for the development of the international dispute resolution market in Brazil. The study is justified by the need to understand how Brazilian law regulates arbitration proceedings and what are the differences between Law 9.307/1996 (Brazilian Arbitration Law) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

This article aims at analyzing how the capital markets reforms that led to the creation of the Chinese-style securities class action can serve as example to Brazil. While China seems to have successfully applied the policies of institution building, nonintervention and zero tolerance towards illegal market behavior, Brazil currently faces a hard problem that calls out for definition of whether publicly-held companies may be held liable for direct damages suffered by investors due to a company’s misconduct. This uncertainty hinders the efficiency of the capital market, and confirms that private enforcement has been historically neglected in the country. In comparison to China, Brazil is also a civil law country that heavily relied on public enforcement of securities law. Hence, the Chinese Securities Law and judiciary guidance may serve as inspiration to future reforms.

This paper seeks to examine all decisions rendered by the STJ in the context of enforcing arbitration agreements involving non-signatory issues in order to determine whether it is possible to identify a Brazilian approach to judicial review in these cases. For the sake of clarity, this paper is divided in the following manner: Part I contains an introduction on the allocation of jurisdiction between national courts and arbitral tribunals; Part II briefly analyzes the legal framework of enforcement of arbitration agreements in Brazil; Part III summarizes and examines all of the decisions rendered by the STJ that dealt with non-signatory issues prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal; and Part IV presents the conclusion.

This article analyzes the jurisprudence of Brazil’s Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the 1958 New York Convention and the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No. 9.307/1996). Through a systematic review of case law, it demonstrates how the STJ interprets and applies the Convention’s Article V grounds for refusal, revealing a consistent pro-arbitration stance aligned with international standards. The Court firmly upholds the principle of non-reviewability of arbitral merits, restricting judicial intervention to procedural or jurisdictional defects. Most denials of recognition arise from insufficient proof of a valid arbitration agreement, particularly in cases lacking signatures or clear consent. Conversely, recognition is granted when parties participate without contesting jurisdiction. Objections based on adhesion contracts or contract imbalance are deemed irrelevant at the recognition stage. Regarding due process, the STJ accepts service by mail, courier, or electronic means if receipt and opportunity for defense are proven, placing the burden of disproving notice on the objecting party. Recognition may be refused for procedural irregularities—such as improper tribunal composition—or when awards are annulled at the seat of arbitration. The Court narrowly interprets the public policy exception, rejecting attempts to challenge arbitral merits under its guise. Although the STJ’s decisions do not always cite the New York Convention explicitly, their outcomes consistently preserve its spirit. The Court’s jurisprudence reflects autonomy, coherence, and respect for arbitral finality, reinforcing Brazil’s image as a modern, arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Construction contracts represent complex commutative agreements wherein the obligations of both parties are determined in advance, maintaining a relative equivalence of value. These contracts often amalgamate elements from other contractual agreements, resulting in unique, atypical arrangements. Notably, in construction contracts and infrastructure projects, cost estimates occur at different project stages: (i) project planning, (ii) decision to build, (iii) call for tender for proposal submission, and, finally, (iv) contracting. As the project progresses through these stages, cost estimates become more precise, detailing grows, and the range of potential outcomes narrows, resulting in increasingly accurate pricing and quantities. Nearly 2340 projects worldwide have already used dispute boards with an estimated global value of over 166 billion dollars. Dispute Resolution Board Foundation statistics reveal that approximately 97% of disagreements arising over a contract that uses a dispute board are resolved within its scope, avoiding the need to resort to arbitration or litigation.