Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Recognition of a U.S. Judgment in Brazil

March 3, 2009/1 Comment/in /by Gilles Cuniberti
image_pdfimage_print

I am grateful to Henry Saint Dahl, the President of the Inter-American Bar Foundation, for contributing this report.

In General Electric Company v. Varig S Aviação Aérea Rio-Grandense, the Superior Court of Justice in Brazilia, Brazil allowed the recognition (homologação) of a US judgment issued by the New York Southern District Court. The Brazilian decision was dated November 5, 2008 but was only published on December 11, 2008.

The parties signed a contract, General Terms of Agreement, according to which Varig purchased from GE an aircraft engine. The contract had a New York choice-of-law clause. The New York judgment was declaratory and it established that General Electric was not responsible for certain malfunctioning of the engine. The American court had decided that: “a) the General Terms of Agreement entered between Varig and GE is in full force and it is applicable to the incident caused by the engine malfunction of June 7, 2000; and b) the Agreement shall be construed following the substantive law of New York.”

Varig argued that the chosen law should be stricken, as a matter of Brazilian public policy, and that the Brazilian Consumer Code (Código de Defesa do Consumidor) should be applied instead. In particular, Varig asserted that this was a consumer transaction and that the Brazilian Consumer Code banned clauses whereby the buyer waived any redress in instances of the seller’s negligence.

The case was complicated by a related action, against General Electric, filed in Brazil by Varig’s insurance company (Presumably the declaratory action would be used to defend against this lawsuit.)

The Brazilian court allowed recognition of the foreign judgment. It held that the Consumer Code applied internally and that it did not prevent the law chosen by the parties to operate freely. It also determined that the recognition requirements (jurisdiction, service, translations, etc.) of art. 15 of the introductory law to the Civil Code had been complied with. Finally, the court decided that the existence of related litigation in Brazil posed no obstacle to the recognition of the foreign judgment according to art. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (no lis pendens).

This is an important case where the Brazilian court applied truly international standards to an international case. Other Latin American countries should take notice.

Priscila Sato, a Brazilian attorney at Arruda Alvim Wambier Advocacia e Consultoria Jurídica provided a copy of the text and general guidance.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Gilles Cuniberti https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Gilles Cuniberti2009-03-03 10:32:012009-03-03 10:32:01Recognition of a U.S. Judgment in Brazil
1 reply

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: Parallel Class Actions in Canada Link to: Parallel Class Actions in Canada Parallel Class Actions in Canada Link to: Consultation Paper on Jurisdiction Link to: Consultation Paper on Jurisdiction Consultation Paper on Jurisdiction
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top