insights.freddoa.com

Categoria: English

  • Litigation Against Chinese Companies: Jurisdiction and Service of Process

    When facing a commercial dispute with a Chinese company, the first step is determining the appropriate jurisdiction for the litigation. It is essential to verify where the company is actually headquartered, as Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau are entirely distinct jurisdictions.

    Suing a Mainland Chinese company in a foreign court may be ineffective if the company holds no assets abroad or in jurisdictions whose judgments Chinese courts enforce. For example, Mainland Chinese courts do not enforce judgments rendered by United States courts. Therefore, the feasibility of enforcing a judgment must guide the initial strategy.

    Jurisdiction and China’s Civil Procedure Law

    Jurisdiction—a court’s authority to hear and decide a case—is the first issue to address. If a plaintiff chooses to sue abroad, courts will require proof of sufficient ties between the foreign company and the chosen forum.

    On the other hand, there is generally no jurisdictional bar to suing a Chinese company directly in Mainland China. Articles 3 and 237 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China grant Chinese courts jurisdiction over international cases involving a foreign plaintiff against a Chinese company.

    Rules for Cross-Border Service of Process

    If the lawsuit is filed outside China, service of process (the formal notification of legal proceedings to a defendant) must follow strict rules. China is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.

    Service under this Convention is conducted through the designated Central Authority in Beijing: the International Judicial Assistance Office of the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China. The procedure requires submitting specific forms, original documents bearing the issuing court’s seal, and their respective translations. Although China did not enter a formal reservation regarding translations upon acceding to the Convention, the Chinese Ministry of Justice requires all documents served in China to be translated into Mandarin Chinese.

    The service process is often lengthy, taking six to nine months. Furthermore, China formally objected to service by postal channels under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, making direct mail service invalid.

    Restrictions on Evidence Gathering

    The evidentiary stage also presents challenges. China prohibits taking depositions within its territory for foreign proceedings, even with the deponent’s consent. In its declaration of accession to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, China declared that it would not be bound by provisions allowing consular officers to supervise depositions.

    Conducting a deposition in China for foreign proceedings can lead to arrest or expulsion. Even taking testimony by telephone from a witness located in China likely violates Chinese law.

    Practical Considerations

    The decision to litigate against a Chinese company requires careful analysis of where the company is based, judgment enforceability, and strict adherence to international treaties on service of process and evidence gathering. Non-compliance with these rules can halt proceedings or invalidate gathered evidence.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Judicial Restructuring and Merger Control

    Judicial Restructuring and Merger Control

    The Intersection Between Judicial Restructuring and Competition Law

    Transactions involving companies under judicial restructuring (recuperação judicial) — a court-supervised process to restructure debts and avoid bankruptcy — often intersect with merger control regulations. In these scenarios, review by competition authorities becomes a critical step.

    The Imcopa/Petrópolis Case

    The case involving Imcopa and Petrópolis illustrates this dynamic. The situation reaffirms the complementary jurisdiction between the judicial restructuring court and antitrust authorities.

    This means that court approval of a restructuring plan or an asset sale does not remove the obligation to assess the transaction’s competitive impact on the market. Both decision-making spheres operate complementarily, each evaluating specific legal requirements within its scope of authority.

    The Importance of Early Planning

    For investors and companies engaged in corporate acquisitions, the primary lesson from the Imcopa/Petrópolis case is the necessity of anticipating antitrust review.

    Assessing competition aspects from the earliest stages of transaction structuring helps mitigate the risk of deal rejection or closing delays, ensuring greater institutional and financial certainty for all parties involved.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • China’s Guidelines on AI: Innovation and Safety

    China’s Guidelines on AI: Innovation and Safety

    Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to challenge global legal systems. Recently, the international community followed the debate on China’s new judicial guidelines for this technology. The primary goal of the initiative is clear: advance technological innovation without compromising safety.

    The Balance Between Innovation and Safety

    China’s new judicial rules on artificial intelligence represent an institutional effort to create a safe environment for technological development. The premise is that the guidelines establish parameters that protect the market and society, allowing innovation to occur in a structured manner. This balance is an important factor in business development and in attracting foreign direct investment to the technology sector.

    Insights for the Brazilian Context

    China’s initiative fosters discussions on what Brazil can learn from these new judicial rules. As the Brazilian business environment adapts to digital innovations, observing international models helps explain the challenges of integrating artificial intelligence into the judicial system and the market. The central debate revolves around structuring an environment that provides legal certainty without stifling the creative and economic potential of new tools.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STF Resumes Review of Foreign Capital in News Websites

    STF Resumes Review of Foreign Capital in News Websites

    Resumption of the Debate at the STF

    The STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) has resumed its review regarding the application of foreign capital limits to news websites. The discussion addresses the rules for direct foreign investment in the media and digital platforms sector in Brazil.

    Relevance for International Investors

    The entry of foreign capital into Brazilian companies is an important driver of business development and expansion. The communications sector has historically faced debates regarding the participation of foreign investors. The current STF review focuses specifically on how news websites fit within these restrictions.

    For founders of media companies, executives, and foreign investors, the resolution of this issue is a key milestone. Clarity regarding permitted capital limits provides greater predictability for corporate transactions and financial contributions in the Brazilian digital market.

    Impacts on the Media and Digital Sector

    The digital media market has attracted significant global interest. The STF’s decision regarding news websites may establish important parameters on how digital journalistic content platforms are treated for investment purposes.

    The resolution of this review will help define the business environment, directly influencing the corporate structuring of new outlets and fundraising abroad.

    Practical Considerations

    Investors and companies in the media sector should follow developments at the STF. The determination regarding foreign capital limits will set the governance rules for receiving international investments in the segment.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Trademark protection beyond registration

    Trademark protection beyond registration

    Formal trademark registration is often seen as the final step in securing exclusive rights to a name or logo. However, effective protection of industrial property assets requires actions that go well beyond the initial filing.

    The importance of continuous monitoring

    The grant of a registration does not automatically prevent third parties from attempting to register identical or similar signs. Therefore, monitoring new trademark applications is a core practice in brand protection. This oversight enables early identification of registration attempts that could cause market confusion or dilute the original trademark’s value.

    By tracking new filings, rights holders can act formally before conflicting marks are granted, safeguarding their market space and preventing more complex disputes in the future.

    Challenges in the digital environment

    With business expanding across digital platforms, trademark misuse has become more frequent and decentralized. Modern trademark protection requires attention to online activities, where unauthorized use can take various forms, from social media profiles to the use of protected terms in e-commerce.

    Digital monitoring is therefore increasingly central. It ensures that a company’s visual and nominal identity is not exploited by third parties to divert customers or harm the reputation built in the market.

    Active protection strategy

    For companies, founders, and investors, understanding that a trademark is a dynamic asset is fundamental. Maintaining exclusivity relies on an active approach, combining formal registration with continuous monitoring of new filings and digital usage.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • ITBI Limits: The Debate Between the STJ and STF

    ITBI Limits: The Debate Between the STJ and STF

    The collection of the Property Transfer Tax (ITBI) represents one of the main transaction costs in the Brazilian real estate market. It is a municipal tax levied on real estate transfers. Currently, the precise scope of this tax is at the center of a relevant institutional debate: the definition of new limits for municipal taxation by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ, Brazil’s highest appellate court for federal law) and the Federal Supreme Court (STF, Brazil’s Supreme Court).

    The nature of municipal real estate taxation

    ITBI is collected by municipal authorities whenever there is a sale and purchase of real estate or the transfer of related real property rights. Because each municipality has its own administrative framework to assess and collect the tax, discrepancies frequently arise between the amount demanded by local authorities and the taxpayer’s expectation.

    These discrepancies occur because municipal taxing power is not absolute. It must operate within statutory and constitutional boundaries. When municipal practices raise doubts regarding these boundaries, the issue is brought before the Judiciary to standardize tax collection rules throughout the country.

    The role of the STJ and STF in defining limits

    The current debate involves the country’s two highest courts. The STJ acts to unify the interpretation of federal legislation, while the STF delivers the final decision on constitutional matters.

    The review of this topic by these courts seeks to establish clear new limits on municipal real estate taxation. The goal is to provide greater predictability, defining how far municipalities can go in demanding ITBI without excessively burdening real estate transactions.

    Legal certainty for the market

    For companies, founders, and foreign investors allocating capital to the Brazilian real estate sector, establishing these parameters is essential. Clarity regarding ITBI rules allows for more efficient structuring of deals and corporate acquisitions involving real estate assets.

    The expectation is that a consolidated position between the STJ and STF will bring greater legal certainty. With well-defined rules, the market gains transparency, reducing the need for lengthy court challenges regarding tax collection at the time of property transfers.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Annulment of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Brazil

    International dispute resolution frequently involves arbitration, a private conflict resolution method chosen by the parties. When a decision is rendered outside the country, it is classified as a foreign arbitral award.

    The debate on choice of forum

    A relevant topic for foreign investors and cross-border companies is the choice of the Brazilian forum to set aside a foreign arbitral award. Setting aside (or annulment) is the legal procedure that seeks to invalidate the decision rendered by the arbitrators.

    The central discussion focuses on the limits of exercising Brazilian jurisdiction. In other words, it assesses the extent to which the country has the legal competence to adjudicate a request to annul a decision issued abroad.

    Limits of national jurisdiction

    The exercise of jurisdiction in international cases has specific parameters and is not unlimited. When it comes to annulling a foreign award, the debate centers on defining whether Brazil is the appropriate forum for this review compared to the seat of arbitration.

    Understanding these institutional limits is important for contract planning and structuring investments in Brazil, providing greater predictability in resolving complex disputes.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Functional Elements Rule Out Trade Dress Infringement

    Functional Elements Rule Out Trade Dress Infringement

    Protecting the visual identity of products is a strategic priority for businesses, especially in the consumer goods sector. A recent report published by legal portal Consultor Jurídico highlights an important principle: similarity in functional elements of a product rules out trade dress infringement.

    The Concept of Trade Dress

    Trade dress, known in Brazil as conjunto-imagem, is the combination of visual and aesthetic elements that characterize a product or service in the market. This includes colors, packaging shapes, textures, and overall design that allow consumers to readily identify the source of the goods. The purpose of this protection is to prevent consumer confusion and unfair competition.

    Functional Elements and Product Similarity

    The core discussion arises when two products share visual similarities. The reported premise establishes a clear distinction between aesthetic features and functional features. Functional elements are those essential for a product to serve its practical purpose or operate properly.

    When similarities between competing items stem from technical or utilitarian requirements, such similarity does not constitute an infringement. In other words, if a product’s shape is dictated by its function, it cannot be monopolized under the claim of trade dress protection.

    Market Implications

    For manufacturers, investors, and executives in the consumer goods industry, this distinction is critical when developing new products. The rule ensures markets remain competitive, allowing different companies to use similar technical and functional solutions, provided they do not copy the purely aesthetic and distinctive elements of competitors.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Impacts of the 67% Tariff on Brazilian Beef in China

    Impacts of the 67% Tariff on Brazilian Beef in China

    Brazilian beef exports to China face a new tariff scenario starting this Thursday (1st). With the exhaustion of the annual export quota established by the Asian country, Brazilian shipments are now subject to a total tariff of 67%. The measure directly affects foreign trade dynamics and demands immediate adaptation from companies operating in this market.

    The Quota System and Application of the Surtax

    The 67% taxation results from the sum of the regular 12% tariff and a 55% surtax. This additional duty is triggered automatically when export volumes exceed the bilaterally negotiated ceiling. Brazil reached 1.106 million metric tons, exhausting the volume projected for 2026.

    The quota system is an internal market protection mechanism used by China to control rapid import growth. In recent years, Chinese beef imports rose from under 1.5 million metric tons in 2018 to around 2.8 million metric tons. Currently, the Chinese market is dealing with lower domestic beef prices and higher domestic supply. The surtax is not exclusive to Brazil, also affecting other global suppliers. However, the impact is substantial for Brazilian exporters, as Brazil accounts for more than 40% of China’s total imported volume.

    Impacts on Cash Flow and Commercial History

    China has established itself as the primary destination for Brazilian beef over the past decade, gaining substantial export share. Between 2016 and 2025, Brazil shipped 8.2 million metric tons to China, generating US$ 42.3 billion in revenue. The volume surge is notable: from 164.9 thousand metric tons in 2016 to 1.6 million metric tons in 2025.

    The high concentration of sales in the Chinese market increases concerns within the production sector. The primary challenge is the surtax’s impact on meatpackers’ cash flows. According to the Brazilian Beef Exporters Association (Abiec — Associação Brasileira das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carnes), the effects began even before the official quota exhaustion. In recent months, meatpackers have already scaled back sales to China and sought buyers in alternative markets. The association estimates that overall beef exports will drop by approximately 10% in 2026, a scenario that also reflects restrictions introduced by the European Union.

    Despite the restrictive tariff scenario, bilateral trade continues to make targeted gains. China recently authorized two additional Brazilian production facilities—located in the states of Minas Gerais and Pernambuco—to export beef.

    Logistics Readjustment Strategies for 2027

    For the upcoming year, the export quota will increase to 1.128 million metric tons. However, sector representatives estimate that this new ceiling could be reached quickly, possibly between March and April 2027.

    Faced with the prospect of early quota depletion, Abiec is discussing strategies for companies to bring production and shipments forward, ensuring access to the new quota at the start of its validity. The logistical planning involves:

    • Production: slaughtering carried out as early as October;
    • Shipment: scheduled for November;
    • Transit: maritime transit estimated at 40 to 45 days;
    • Customs clearance: cargo arrival in China in January 2027.

    Beyond logistical readjustments, the association resumed discussions with the Brazilian government regarding a potential allocation of the 2027 quota among meatpackers. The goal is to distribute shipments across the year, preventing a small number of companies from concentrating the entire surtax-free volume.

    Practical Considerations

    The depletion of export quotas highlights the need for rigorous customs and logistical planning. Bringing shipments forward and continuously monitoring export volumes are essential practices to mitigate the financial impacts of surtaxes. Market diversification also stands out as a strategic alternative to reduce exposure to regulatory and tariff shifts in a single destination.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • TST Allows Unfair Competition Counterclaim in Overtime Lawsuits

    TST Allows Unfair Competition Counterclaim in Overtime Lawsuits

    The Superior Labor Court (TST, Brazil’s highest labor court) issued a notable decision for the business environment by admitting a counterclaim for unfair competition within an overtime lawsuit.

    Understanding counterclaims

    In the legal system, a counterclaim (reconvenção) acts as a procedural counter-attack. It is a mechanism that allows the party being sued (the defendant) to make a claim against the party who initiated the lawsuit (the plaintiff), using the same legal proceeding. In the labor context, this means that the sued company can raise its own claims against the worker in the same case.

    Unfair competition in the workplace

    Unfair competition involves practices that harm business activities, such as client diversion or the misuse of strategic information. The TST’s decision illustrates that these violations can be addressed directly in the Labor Courts.

    In the reported case, the worker filed a lawsuit claiming overtime pay. In response, the company used the counterclaim mechanism to accuse the worker of unfair competition. The TST accepted the validity of this procedure, allowing both matters to be handled together.

    Relevance to corporate management

    The TST’s acceptance of counterclaims demonstrates that companies have procedural tools to seek redress when they suffer losses caused by disloyal acts of their employees. Consolidating claims into a single lawsuit contributes to efficiency in resolving corporate disputes.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.