Month: February 2014

I.      Introduction

The purpose of this article written exclusively for the “Transnational Notes” of NYU’s Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law, directed by Professor Franco Ferrari, is to provide a brief overview of recent case law regarding the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in Brazil.

According to the Brazilian Arbitration Act (“Lei 9.307/96” or “BAA”), an arbitral award rendered outside Brazil shall be recognized by the competent authority to produce its effects within the Brazilian territory.

Since the 2004 Amendment to the Brazilian Federal Constitution[i], the Superior Court of Justice (“Superior Tribunal de Justiça” or “STJ”) is the competent authority to decide on the recognition of foreign awards in Brazil, including arbitral awards.

Such recognition is governed by three sets of rules: (i) first, international treaties adopted by Brazil, such as the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (1975)[ii], adopted in 1996, the Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Effectiveness of Foreign Arbitral Award (1979)[iii], adopted in 1997, and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (“the New York Convention”), adopted in 2002[iv]; (ii) the BAA, already referred to; and (iii) the STJ Resolution 9, of 4 May 2005 (“Resolution 9/2005”).

II.      Case law from 1996 to 2009

In 2010, the Brazilian Arbitration Committee (“CBAr”), an academic nonprofit organization, concluded a comprehensive empirical research on judicial decisions related to arbitration matters and the application of the BAA[v].

One of the reports dealt specifically with the recognition of foreign arbitral awards, analyzing judicial decisions rendered between November 1996 and July 2009. It concluded that the STJ and the Federal Supreme Court (which was the competent authority to recognize foreign awards until 2004) were highly favorable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards. Recognition was denied only in a small percentage of cases.

III.      Recent developments (2011-2013)

STJ’s “pro arbitration” approach is confirmed by recent case law.

We analyzed twelve arbitral awards submitted for recognition to the STJ between 2011 and 2013. Out of those awards, only one was not recognized (Kanematsu v. Advanced Telecommunications Systems), due to the lack of proof of a valid arbitration agreement. Such cases are presented in more detail below. All the cases and facts discussed below are public and may be found in the STJ’s website[vi], searching by the reference included in the footnotes.

A.     Comverse v. American Telecommunications do Brasil^[vii]

Claimant Comverse Inc.sought the recognition of the arbitral award rendered in New York City. The arbitral tribunal decided that the American Telecommunications Inc. Chile and the American Telecommunications do Brasil Ltda. – a Brazilian subsidiary of the Chilean company – should pay damages to Claimant. The Brazilian subsidiary, Respondent in the recognition proceedings, alleged that it was not a party to the original contract and was not bound by the arbitration clause. Claimant responded that, during the arbitral proceedings, counsel for the Chilean company sent a letter to the arbitral tribunal declaring that the affiliated companies (including Brazilian affiliate) (i) agreed to be bound by the arbitration clause, (ii) accepted the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction and (iii) that the counsel was going to represent them. The question was whether or not such letter could be considered a valid arbitration agreement and a valid counsel nomination.

The STJ answered those questions in the affirmative. It found that, according to Art. 38 II of BAA[viii] and article V (1) (a) of the New York Convention, the award shall be recognized if the arbitration agreement is valid “under the law to which the parties have subjected it”. The STJ clarified that the applicable law to party representation is not necessarily Brazilian law, but the rules chosen by the parties. According to the institutional arbitration rules applicable to the case, the parties were allowed to nominate their counsel by sending a letter to the arbitral tribunal. Furthermore, the representative of the Brazilian company had been present in the hearings, including when the Arbitral Tribunal and the parties decided to include the Brazilian company, as well as the other subsidiaries, in the proceedings, and never objected to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. The STJ concluded that, according to the principle of good faith, a Respondent in an arbitration proceeding cannot accept to abide by the arbitration clause and then oppose to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The STJ also decided that the party opposing the recognition of an arbitral award bears the burden of proving the existence of grounds for such recognition to be denied, burden which was not fulfilled in the present case.

B.     Western Bulk Carriers v. A.P. Oxidos^[ix]

Western Bulk Carriers sought the recognition of the award rendered by an arbitral tribunal in London ordering A.P. Oxidos Industria e Comercia Ltda. (“Respondent”) to pay damages for breach of contract. Respondent alleged that the requirements of articles 37 of the BAA[x], 5 III and IV of the Resolution 9/2005 were not fulfilled, because only the signature of the English notary was legalized, not the signature of the arbitrator, and the arbitral award annexed to the recognition proceeding was neither complete nor translated.

First, STJ rejected the argument concerning the arbitral award since two copies had been annexed to the proceedings and one of them was complete. The STJ then analyzed the meaning of the word “authenticated” in Art. 37 I of the BAA. It reasoned that, according to case law, the recognition of the notary’s signature is valid under this article of the BAA. Secondly, the STJ acknowledged that the award had become binding on the parties. Thus, the requirements were fulfilled. Thirdly, it added that there was no violation of public policy. The arbitral award was granted recognition.

C.     LDCB v. LVL de C^[xi]

Louis Dreyfus Commodities Brasil S.A sought the recognition of the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal of the International Cotton Association. The Arbitral Tribunal decided that LVL de C (“Respondent”) should pay damages for breach of the purchase agreement of cotton. Respondent opposed to the recognition of the arbitral award alleging that the arbitration agreement was invalid due to formal requirements for standard form contracts under Art. 4 §2 of the BAA[xii]. It also alleged that it had not been duly notified (Art. 5 II of the Resolution 9/2005).

STJ stated that the parties had signed every page of the contract (even the page containing the arbitration clause), and that the clause seemed to be valid according to the law chosen by the parties (Art. 38 II of the BAA). Furthermore, the STJ reminded that it is not allowed to re-examine the merits of the dispute in a proceeding for recognition of foreign award. Hence, the STJ clarified that it could not, in the case at hand, define the nature of the contract, and determine whether the contract was a standard form contract or not, an issue which had not been dealt with by the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral award was granted recognition.

D.    YPFB Andina v. Univen Petroquímica^[xiii]

YPFB Andina S.A. and Univen Petroquímica Ltda. entered into a contract for the supply of natural gas during three years. According to the allegations, YPFB Andina suspended the supply of gas before the end of the three years. The arbitral tribunal decided that the contract was validly suspended in light of “force majeure” events. Univen Petroquímica Ltda. (“Respondent”) argued that the arbitral award could not be recognized in Brazil because: (i) the arbitral tribunal had been partial, (ii) public policy had been violated, and (iii) a setting aside procedure was pending in the place of arbitration.

The STJ rejected the first argument because there was nothing in the facts indicating that Respondent opposed to the arbitral tribunal when it had the opportunity to do so. As regards the suspension of the contract and the alleged public policy violation, the STJ reminded that it is not allowed to re-examine the merits of the case, since its power was limited by articles 38 and 39[xiv] of the BAA. Finally, as regards the setting aside procedure, the STJ decided that Respondent did not prove it, and therefore the argument could not be considered. The arbitral award was granted recognition.

E.     Nuovo Pignone v. Petromec^[xv]

In this case, the STJ clarified that, according to Art. 34 of the BAA[xvi], an arbitral award is considered foreign when it is rendered outside Brazil. The BAA does not take into consideration the location of the arbitration chamber which administered the arbitral proceedings. For a comprehensive analysis of this case, we refer to Daniel Aun’s article also published in the NYU “Transnational Notes”[xvii].

F.      Kanematsu v. Advanced Telecommunications Systems^[xviii]

Kanematsu USA Inc. sought the recognition of the award rendered by the AAA, which decided that the Advanced Telecommunications Systems do Brasil Ltda. (“Respondent”) should pay damages. Respondent opposed to the recognition arguing the inexistence of a contract signed by the parties and the absence of legal reasoning in the award.

The STJ denied recognition, finding that the contract between the parties had not been signed and Respondent objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal during the arbitral proceedings. The STJ cited Plexus[xix], in which it was decided that, since the choice of arbitration is an exception, the express and clear will of the parties is mandatory. Hence, the STJ concluded that there was no proof of the existence of the arbitration agreement and that recognizing this award would be a violation of articles 37 II  and 39 II  of the BAA.

G.    GE Medical Systems v. Tecnimed Paramedics^[xx]

The recognition of this arbitral award rendered in Miami, FL, United States (SEC 853/EX) is related to two US state judgments validating the arbitration agreement, which had been also submitted for recognition to the STJ (SEC 854/EX).

Both recognition proceedings were suspended because one of the parties had previously sought the declaration of invalidity of the arbitration agreement before a Brazilian court, in the State of Rio Grande do Sul. The State Court of Appeals decided that the arbitration agreement was invalid and an appeal related to such procedure was pending in the STJ at the time both recognition proceedings were initiated. This is why, at the request of one of the parties, the STJ decided to suspend both recognition proceedings.

Later on, GE Medical Systems Information Technologies Inc. and General Electric do Brasil S.A. requested the continuation of the recognition proceedings before the STJ. In granting such request in the Regimental Appeal of SEC 854/EX, in 2011, the STJ decided that setting aside proceedings and recognition proceedings may exist and develop in parallel (no lis pendens)

The appeals against the State Court of Appeals decision to the STJ were found invalid for violation of formal procedural requirements under Brazilian law[xxi]. Therefore, the State Court of Appeals decision rendering the arbitration agreement invalid turned into res judicata.

However, in deciding SEC 854, the STJ found that such res judicata did not affect the recognition of the two US state judgments validating the arbitration agreement because the grounds (“causa de pedir”) for such lawsuits were different. Therefore, the STJ decided to grant partial recognition to the US state judgments, excluding some civil and criminal sanctions. The recognition of the arbitral award is still pending in the STJ (SEC 853/EX).

H.    Weil Brothers Cotton Inc. v. Espólio Pedro Ivo de Freitas[xxii]

Weil Brothers Cotton Inc. sought the recognition of the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal of the International Cotton Association in 2008. The arbitral award decided that the assets (“espólio”) of Pedro Ivo de Freitas  – Pedro Ivo de Freitas being deceased – should pay damages for breach of the cotton purchase agreement. Respondent’s arguments against recognition were, among others, that (i) the arbitral tribunal was not competent since there were two different contracts, (ii) the arbitration agreement contained in a standard form contract did not observe the form requirements of the BAA and, therefore, was invalid and ineffective (Art. 4 §2 of the BAA), (iii) the contract was tainted with fraud, and (iv) it was not duly notified according to Art. 39 of the BAA.

In dismissing all of Respondent’s arguments and granting the enforcement of the award, the STJ decided that (i) the arbitral tribunal was competent because the International Cotton Association was mentioned in both contracts; (ii) the STJ cannot determine the validity and effectiveness of the contract in a proceeding for recognition of a foreign award, because such analysis would entail an examination of the merits of the dispute, which is prohibited by Brazilian law, and also in light of the fact that there was a lawsuit pending in Brazil to deal with the fraud allegations; and, finally, (iii) Claimant proved the existence of Respondent’s notification and Respondent’s awareness of the arbitral proceeding.

I.       Keytrade AG v. Ferticitrus Indústria e Comércio de fertilizantes[xxiii]

Keytrade AG sought the recognition of an arbitral award rendered against Ferticitrus Indústria e Comércio de fertilizantes Ltda. (“Respondent”) by an arbitral tribunal in London. The dispute concerned “demurrage” expenses related to Respondent’s debarkment’s delay. Respondent opposed to the recognition of the award alleging that it had not been duly notified (Art. 38 III of the BAA) and that the compound interests in the sentence were a violation of public policy (Art. 39 II of the BAA).

The STJ rejected both arguments, deciding that (i) the notifications were made according to the law chosen by the parties, that is, the law of the place of arbitration (London), which allows for notification by email, fax or letter, in accordance with Art. 39 of the BAA, and the receipt of those notifications was proven; (ii) as regards the public policy argument, the STJ reminded that it is not any divergence with Brazilian law that shall suffice to fulfill the conditions of violation of public policy. The fundamental values of the Brazilian law system must be threatened to allow the STJ to re-examine the merits of the dispute, which is not the case at hand, because compound interests are also accepted in Brazil in certain types of contracts provided for in the Brazilian Civil Code (“contrato de mútuo”) and according to the requirements of Brazilian law.

J.        Mandate Holdings LLC. v. Consórcio Europa[xxiv]

Mandate Holdings LLC. sought the recognition of an arbitral award rendered against Consórcio Europa  by an arbitral tribunal seated in Los Angeles. The dispute related to the breach of the licensing agreement, containing an arbitration agreement.

Consórcio Europa (“Respondent”) argued that the arbitral award should not be recognized in Brazil because (i) there was no proof of power of attorney attributed to the vice-president of Mandate Holdings Llc., (ii) the Supreme Court of California had not recognized the award, as should be done according to the Californian civil procedure code, (iii) there was no proof that the award is the final judgment (res judicata), (iv) the contract is a standard form contract rendering the arbitration agreement invalid, and (v) Respondent had not been duly notified.

The STJ rejected all the arguments deciding that (i) the powers of the vice-president was recognized by the notary of Los Angeles; (ii) the recognition of a foreign award in Brazil is made only in accordance with Brazilian laws (the BAA and the Resolution 9/2005); (iii) according to the arbitration agreement, the award would be binding on both parties and had to be executed; (iv) the STJ cannot determine the nature of a contract in a proceeding for recognition of foreign award, since this would conduct to a re-examination of the merits of the dispute; and finally (v) a “letter rogatory” is not necessary to notify a party, since email, fax or a simple letter is enough, as long as the receipt can be proven.

K.    Queensland Cotton Corporation Ltd. v. Agropastoril Jotabasso[xxv]

Claimant, Queensland Cotton Corporation Ltd., sought the recognition of the arbitral award rendered by the arbitral tribunal of the International Cotton Association in Liverpool against Respondent, Agropastoril Jotabasso Ltda. (former Agropecuária Basso Ltda.).

Respondent alleged that the award could not be recognized because (i) it had not been duly notified, (ii) the contracts signed by the parties were not included in the records, (iii) the award was unfair, (iv) the amount claimed in the recognition proceedings was higher than the amount included in the award, and (v) Olam International Ltd. is not a legitimate successor of Claimant since there was no proof of its power of representation in the records.

In dismissing all of Respondent’s arguments and granting the enforcement of the award, the STJ made it clear that it cannot determine the nature of a contract and the fairness of an award in a proceeding for recognition of a foreign award, because such analysis would entail a re-examination of the merits of the dispute, which is prohibited by Brazilian law.

L.      Queensland Cotton Corporation Ltd. v. Espólio Pedro Ivo Freitas[xxvi]

Queensland Cotton Corporation Ltd sought the recognition of the arbitral award rendered by an arbitral tribunal under the International Cotton Association in Liverpool against the assets (“espólio”) of Pedro Ivo de Freitas (“de cujus”) (“Respondent”) – Pedro Ivo de Freitas being deceased.

Respondent opposed to the recognition alleging that it did not sign the contract containing the arbitration agreement and was never aware of the choice of arbitration.

The STJ decided that the successor of the de cujus is responsible for all debts, and there was proof of a duly notification made according the law chosen by the parties. The arbitral award was granted recognition.

Rafael F. Alves

LL.M. New York University, Arthur T. Vanderbilt Scholar – Class of ’10. Master of Laws, University of São Paulo. Senior Associate of the Arbitration Practice at L. O. Baptista Schmidt Valois Miranda Ferreira Agel Advogados. Director of the Brazilian Arbitration Committee.

Joséphine Marmy

Master of Law at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Currently working as a law clerk at Baker & McKenzie Zurich. Former intern at L.O. Baptista Schmidt Valois Miranda Ferreira Agel Advogados in São Paulo, and former assistant of Professor Pierre Tercier in Switzerland.

On October 16, 2012, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (hereinafter “Supreme Court”) issued a decision wherein it clarified its position regarding the effect of a party’s bankruptcy on international arbitration proceedings in Switzerland.[1] The Supreme Court therewith reacted to numerous criticisms regarding its so-called Vivendi decision of March 31, 2009[2].

I.              The Vivendi decision

A.           The decision of the Supreme Court

In 2009, the Supreme Court was faced with the question of the effect of the bankruptcy of a Polish company, Elektrim SA (hereinafter “Elektrim”), on an international arbitration proceeding in Switzerland.[3] Elektrim, a defendant in the arbitration proceeding in Geneva, informed the arbitral tribunal that it had been declared bankrupt in Poland and that therefore all arbitration agreements concluded by the company ceased to exist and all arbitration proceedings ended for the company. It relied on article 142 Polish Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “BA”), which states: “Any arbitration clause concluded by the bankrupt shall lose its legal effect as at the date bankruptcy is declared and any pending arbitration proceedings shall be discontinued.“[4] The arbitral tribunal decided to discontinue the proceeding with respect to Elektrim as the entity had lost its capacity to be a party in the arbitration proceeding pursuant to article 142 BA.[5]

The Supreme Court upheld the award over a challenge. It held that the capacity to be a party in arbitration proceedings depends on legal capacity. As the legal capacity is to be determined, based on the Swiss conflict of laws provisions, by the law governing the registration of legal entities, Elektrim’s legal capacity and the capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding were governed by Polish law.[6] The Supreme Court saw no reason to question the arbitral tribunal’s view that article 142 BA deprived a bankrupt party of the capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding and held that Elektrim had thus lost this capacity.[7]

B.            Critique

Numerous authors criticized the decision of the Supreme Court.[8] The principal criticism was that the Supreme Court had misconstrued the scope of article 142 BA by interpreting it as a norm regulating the capacity to be a party in a proceeding instead of the substantive validity of the arbitration agreement. In the latter case, the bankruptcy of Elektrim would have had no effect on the proceeding because of the principle of favor validitatis regarding arbitration agreements in article 178(2) Swiss Private International Law Act (hereinafter “PILA”).[9]

II.           Revision of Vivendi in 2012

In 2012, the Supreme Court had the chance to review the question of the effect of a party’s bankruptcy on the capacity to be a party in an international arbitration proceeding in Switzerland. In doing so, the Supreme Court approached the topic more carefully and rendered an elaborate decision clarifying its position.[10]

A.           Facts and decision of arbitral tribunal

In 2009, a controversy over an agreement, that contained an arbitration clause for arbitration in Geneva, arose between a Portuguese and a Chinese company. In August 2009, a Portuguese court declared the Portuguese company insolvent. Nearly a year later, the Chinese company initiated an ICC arbitration proceeding against the Portuguese entity.[11]

In light of its insolvency, the Portuguese entity disputed the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.[12] It relied in particular on article 87(1) Portuguese Insolvency Law (hereinafter “IL”) which states: “Without prejudice to provisions contained in applicable international treaties, the efficacy of arbitral agreements relating to disputes that may potentially affect the value of the insolvency estate and to which the insolvent is party shall be suspended.”[13]

In an interim award, the arbitral tribunal concluded it had jurisdiction as the arbitration clause was valid and the parties were capable of being parties in an international arbitration proceeding in Switzerland.[14] It considered the arbitration clause to be valid based on article 178(2) PILA and case law stating that an arbitration clause survives the bankruptcy of a party under Swiss law.[15] Regarding the capacity to be a party in arbitration proceedings, the arbitral tribunal determined that Portuguese law was applicable and concluded that article 87 IL does not have any effect on the capacity of a party as it only addresses the validity of an arbitration agreement.[16]

B.            Law governing the capacity of a party in international arbitration proceedings

First, the Supreme Court determined the law governing the capacity to be a party in an international arbitration proceeding in Switzerland. In this respect, the Supreme Court noted that Chapter 12 PILA does not contain a provision regarding subjective arbitrability of non-state parties, and accordingly the capacity to be party in arbitration proceedings is to be determined based on the preliminary substantive law question of the legal capacity.[17]

Based on article 154(1) PILA, it held that the legal capacity of a legal entity is to be determined by the law of the state under which the entity is registered.[18] Thus, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Portuguese law governs the legal capacity of the Portuguese entity.[19]

C.           Definition of legal capacity and its consequences

Then, the Supreme Court referred to Swiss law to define legal capacity as the capacity to be the subject of rights and duties. It further concluded that if the legal capacity of an entity is to be determined based on foreign law, it must be analyzed if the entity is capable of having rights and duties under this foreign law. If so, the entity has legal capacity and capacity to be a party in an international arbitration proceeding that is governed by Chapter 12 PILA. The Supreme Court then held that specific restrictions regarding arbitration proceedings of the law governing the entity’s registration, which do not affect the legal capacity of the entity in general, have no effect on the capacity to be a party in arbitration proceedings in Switzerland.[20]

The Supreme Court then analyzed Portuguese law and concluded that insolvent entities are subject to rights and duties until the completion of liquidation in Portugal. Thus, the entity has legal capacity and capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding governed by Chapter 12 PILA. Even if article 87 IL hinders a Portuguese insolvent entity to be a party in a Portuguese arbitration proceeding, this would have no effect on the capacity to be a party in an international arbitration proceeding in Switzerland, as the only decisive factor for the proceedings in Switzerland is whether the Portuguese law assigns the entity rights and duties.[21]

D.           Comments to its Vivendi decision

The Supreme Court then addressed its Vivendi decision and pointed out that this decision needs to be seen in the specific context of Polish law and can neither be generalized nor the statements therein applied to the law of other jurisdictions. In particular, that decision does not confirm in a general way that foreign insolvency laws which declare arbitration agreements ineffective in the case of a party’s insolvency result in the loss of the capacity to be a party to arbitration proceedings.[22]

E.            Conclusion regarding subjective arbitrability

The Supreme Court upheld the award by concluding that article 87(1) IL has no effect on the legal capacity and the capacity to be a party in international arbitration proceedings in Switzerland. Pursuant to the Swiss lex arbitri, article 87(1) IL only addresses the validity of the arbitration agreement. But this question is governed by article 178(2) PILA, pursuant to which an arbitration agreement is valid if it conforms to Swiss law. Since under Swiss law an arbitration agreement survives the bankruptcy of a party, article 87(1) IL has no effect on this question either.[23]

III.        Comments

This new decision raises various issues. Among them are the characterization of the insolvency problem and its consequences, the effect of the lex concursus on arbitration proceedings and limits thereto of the lex fori, the difference between capacity to be a party in a proceeding and the procedural right to bring an action, the determination of the capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding, the applicable law on the definition of legal capacity of a foreign entity, the reliance on provisions outside of the lex arbitri and the application of foreign insolvency law as loi d’application immédiate.

Hereinafter, the characterization of the insolvency problem and the determination of the capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding will be addressed. The characterization deserves particular attention as it is the starting point in an analysis of the effect of a foreign insolvency and can have a significant effect on the outcome. The determination of the capacity is of practical importance as it provides the parties with a test to predict the consequences of insolvency with respect to international arbitration proceedings in Switzerland.

A.           The characterization of the insolvency problem

The effect of foreign insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings on arbitration proceedings in Switzerland mainly depends on the characterization of the problem. “[W]hether the insolvency of a party is an issue of capacity, of the binding force and scope of the arbitration agreement or a procedural question”[24] is a decisive factor, as it determines the applicable provisions of Chapter 12 PILA and therewith the law governing the issue of the foreign insolvency.[25]

As shown in the decision, the characterization can predetermine the effect of party’s insolvency on proceedings in Switzerland: If it is an issue of the validity of the arbitration agreement, a foreign insolvency law has no effect on an arbitration proceeding in Switzerland based on article 178(2) PILA, according to which an arbitration agreement is valid if it conforms at least to Swiss law, and case law pursuant to which the bankruptcy of a party does not affect the validity of an arbitration agreement under Swiss law.[26] However, if the capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding in Switzerland is the issue, the answer depends on the entity’s capacity to be the subject of rights and duties pursuant to the law of the place of the registration.[27]

In Vivendi, the Supreme Court characterized the problem of insolvency as one of capacity without explicitly addressing the question of characterization.[28] The absence of any reasoning in this regard was surprising as the minority of judges took the position during the public deliberation that it was rather an issue of the validity of the arbitration agreement than one of the party’s capacity.[29]

Likewise in its new decision, the Supreme Court characterized the insolvency problem as an issue of capacity:[30] It analyzed, without addressing the process of characterization, the question of insolvency as one of the capacity to be a party in an arbitration proceeding. Only after concluding that Portuguese law does not affect the entity’s capacity, did it hold that article 87 IL solely addresses an aspect of the substantive validity of the arbitration agreement.[31]

Hence, the Supreme Court has twice characterized the insolvency issue as one of capacity. As the characterization process was not explicitly addressed in either decision, it is not clear how the Supreme Court came to this conclusion. Under the presumption that the Supreme Court conducted a characterization of the insolvency under the lex fori, as earlier case law suggests,[32] and with a focus on the legal problem at issue and not the particular provision invoked,[33] it could be concluded that the Supreme Court will also in future characterize insolvency as a capacity issue. It might, however, be the case that the Supreme Court did not want to commit itself to such a characterization at this time. Be it one way or the other, it would be helpful to have an express ruling on this question to provide potential parties with predictability.

B.            Determination of capacity to be party in international arbitration proceedings

The Supreme Court held in its new decision that the capacity of a foreign entity to be a party in international arbitration proceedings in Switzerland depends on the entity’s capacity to be the subject of rights and duties under the law governing the entity’s registration. Restrictions regarding arbitration proceedings of the foreign law that do not affect the entity’s legal capacity in general will not be considered.[34]

At least here the Supreme Court provides the parties with predictability. This straightforward test to determine the consequences of insolvency on their capacity to be a party in international arbitration proceedings in Switzerland strengthens Switzerland as a place of arbitration by providing the mentioned predictability and by limiting the reach of foreign insolvency laws[35]. Thus, if insolvency is characterized as an issue of capacity, such foreign insolvency laws cannot prevent arbitration proceedings in Switzerland as long as the entity has legal capacity in the country of registration.

Simon Marc Hohler

The author is an LL.M. student in the International Business Regulation, Litigation and Arbitration program at New York University School of Law, Class of 2014. After graduating from the Universities of Lucerne and Neuchatel in Switzerland in 2008 (Bilingual Master of Law; J.D. equivalent), he gained working experience in Swiss and U.S. law firms as well as at the Cantonal Court of Zug, Switzerland. After being admitted to the bar in 2011, he worked in the Litigation & Arbitration Team at Blum & Grob Attorneys at Law Ltd. in Zurich, Switzerland.

This is to announce the February 24^th, 2014, session of the Arbitration Forum of the Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law, entitled “International Commercial Arbitral Awards as Investments”.

The event will take place on Monday, February 24^th, 2014, from 6.00 – 8.00 pm, in the Lester Pollack Colloquium Room, Furman Hall 900 (245 Sullivan Street, New York, NY 10012).

It is a great pleasure to be able to announce that on the occasion of that session, Prof. Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo will give a talk on the aforementioned and that Prof. José Alvarez, Mr. Brian King and Mr. Laurence Shore agreed to act as commentators.

Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo is a tenured professor of Private International Law at the Catholic University of Milan, where he also teaches International Arbitration and Transnational Commercial Law. He is the author of five books and a co-editor of a commentary on international arbitration, as well as of over 100 articles and other contributions on a variety of topics of public and private international law, arbitration law, the law of the European Union, competition law, telecommunications and banking law. He gave a course on Mandatory Rules and International Commercial Arbitration at the Hague Academy of International Law in 2003. Prof. Radicati di Brozolo is a founding partner of the arbitration and litigation boutique Radicati di Brozolo Sabatini in Milan, where he practices both as counsel and as arbitrator. He is a member of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC. He was, inter alia, counsel for the claimant in ICSID Case ARB/05/07 Saipem v. People’s Republic of Bangladesh. He is a member of the ICC Court of International Arbitration. Prior to founding his firm, he was for thirty years a partner in two of the leading Italian firms, having started his professional career at the Office of the Legal Advisor of the Bank of International Settlements.

José Enrique Alvarez, a former president of the American Society of International Law and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has made substantial scholarly contributions to a wide range of subjects within international law, including the law-generating roles of international organizations, the challenges facing international criminal tribunals, and the international investment regime. Along with NYU colleague Benedict Kingsbury, Alvarez is the co-editor-in-chief of the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field, the American Journal of International Law. In September 2013, he was elected to the Institut de Droit International, a Nobel Prize–winning organization consisting of the world’s leading public international lawyers. Prof. Alvarez has been special adviser on international law to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, an attorney adviser with the Office of the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State, and has taught at Columbia, the University of Michigan, George Washington, and Georgetown law schools. He received a BA summa cum laude from Harvard University, first-class honors in jurisprudence from Oxford University’s Magdalen College, and a JD cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was topics editor of the Harvard International Law Journal. In 2009, he delivered a series of lectures at The Hague Academy of International Law on the subject of foreign investment, subsequently published as The Public International Law Regime Governing International Investment (2011).

Brian King is a partner in the international arbitration group at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. Prior to returning to New York in 2007, he headed the arbitration group in the firm’s Amsterdam office for seven years. Mr. King’s practice centers on acting as counsel or arbitrator in investment treaty and international commercial disputes. He has represented both investors and States, as well as some of the largest European and U.S. corporations. A 1990 graduate of the NYU Law School, Mr. King, who joined NYU as scholar-in-residence in November 2013, regularly speaks and publishes on arbitration-related topics.

Laurence Shore is a partner in the New York City office of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.  He is a member of the firm’s international arbitration practice group. His law degree is from Emory University, where he was Editor-in-Chief of the Emory Law Journal (1988-89), and he holds a Ph.D. in American History from The Johns Hopkins University. Laurence’s publications include “You Can Bet the Company But Not the State: The Proper and Improper Conduct of Sovereigns in Arbitration”, World Arbitration and Mediation Review (2009); and “Arbitration, Rhetoric, Proof: The Unity of International Arbitration Across Cultures”, in Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers (A.W. Rovine ed., 2010). He is also the co-author of International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (2007).

To RSVP, please send an email to Cassy Rodriguez at cassy.rodriguez@nyu.edu

On March 13, 2013, by its decision in TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5 (the TCL Case), Australia’s highest court, the High Court of Australia, unanimously rejected efforts by the losing participant in an international arbitration to challenge, as unconstitutional, Australia’s adoption of the enforcement provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) in Australian’s International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (the IA Act).

This note summarizes the Australian Court’s decision, and considers it in the context of debates within American legal scholarship regarding the consistency of arbitration proceedings with judicial power provisions of the United States’ own Constitution, which are relevantly the same as those of the Australian Constitution.

Background to the TCL Case

The TCL Case arose out of a dispute between the Australian and Chinese parties to a distribution agreement that provided for the submission of disputes to arbitration.[1]  The distributor and claimant, Castel Electronics Pty Ltd (Castel) prevailed in the arbitration, with two awards made which obliged the Chinese manufacturer, TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd (TCL) to pay Castel A$3,369,351 in damages, and A$732,500 in respect of legal costs.[2]

Castel applied to the Federal Court of Australia for enforcement of the arbitral awards, which TCL resisted, asserting that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the awards, or alternatively, that the awards should not be enforced on public policy grounds relating to alleged breaches of natural justice.[3]  TCL also, by a separate proceeding, applied to have the awards set aside, again on the basis of public policy.[4]  The Federal Court held that it had jurisdiction to enforce the awards, and that there was no justification for refusing to enforce the awards, or for setting them aside.[5]

Application to the High Court

TCL then applied to the High Court, which has original jurisdiction in matters concerning the Australian Constitution.  TCL contended that the IA Act’s adoption of Articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law,[6] in not permitting courts to refuse to enforce an award for error of law:

(a) undermined the institutional integrity of the Federal Court by requiring the Federal Court, as a repository of judicial power by Australia’s Constitution, knowingly to perpetrate a legal error by endorsing legally incorrect awards for execution as if they were judgments of the Federal Court;[7] and/or

(b)  impermissibly conferred judicial power upon the arbitral tribunal (where Australia’s Constitution requires judicial power to be exercised only by courts[8]), by allowing the tribunal “the last word” on the application of the law to the dispute the subject of the arbitration.[9]

TCL also argued that the impairment of the Federal Court’s institutional integrity was aggravated by the fact that Article 28 of Model Law, or alternatively an implied term of the relevant arbitration agreement, required an arbitral award to be correct in law.[10]

In two separate judgments, the High Court rejected all of TCL’s contentions. Chief Justice French and Justice Gageler noted the origins of Articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law in the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), and that it was essential therefore to construe the Model Law in the context of the objects of the New York Convention.[11]  They emphasised that the scheme designed by the New York Convention, and thus the Model Law, was directed at facilitating the contractually bargained agreement of the parties to refer their respective rights to arbitration in lieu of national courts, and that this agreement effectively superseded the original rights and obligations of the parties.[12]

In that context, the grounds for refusal to enforce in Article 36 essentially delineate the scope of the authority consensually given to the arbitral tribunal by the parties, and the role of national courts is to uphold the scope of that choice, as distinct from deciding the dispute: “Enforcement of the arbitral award is enforcement of the binding result of the agreement of the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration, not enforcement of any disputed right submitted to arbitration”.[13]  Chief Justice French and Justice Gageler posited that Article 28 reinforced the parties’ autonomous choice of dispute settlement mechanism by granting to the parties the freedom to choose whichever substantive law or rules of law they wish to have applied to their dispute.[14]  It was not the case, therefore, that Article 28 required an award to be legally correct, nor could, therefore, that requirement be implied into an arbitration agreement made in the context of the absence of legal error as a ground to refuse to enforce an award in the Model Law. Such an argument by TCL ran “counter to the autonomy of the parties to an arbitration agreement which infuses the Model Law, and of which Art 28 is a particular guarantee”.[15]

In these circumstances, there could be no difficulty with the Federal Court enforcing an award that could potentially contain a legal error.  In enforcing the award, the Federal Court was not endorsing its reasoning; rather the Court was testing the award’s adherence to the Model Law.[16] The obligations requiring the enlistment of judicial power at the Federal Court level were those created by the award, which in turn was created as a result of the parties’ agreement to refer their dispute to private arbitration.  The existing grounds for refusal to enforce – for example, where the arbitration agreement was not valid, or on the basis of public policy – provided appropriate protection to the integrity of courts in performing their recognition and enforcement roles.[17]

The existence of the autonomous agreement of the parties also disposed of TCL’s contentions that an arbitral tribunal could be impermissibly exercising judicial power. The High Court has long defined “judicial power” as having as a key characteristic the capacity to be exercised coercively, or independently of the consent of the relevant parties, and as resulting in an outcome (an order, or a judgment) which is binding without more.[18]  In both judgments, the Court contrasted this with the nature of private power exercised by arbitrators, which has as its fundamental premise the consent and agreement of the parties,[19] and which is dependent upon the assistance of the courts for its force and binding effect.[20]

Relevance to the United States

The decision should be of interest to lawyers in the United States.  The judicial power provisions of the Australian Constitution were modelled upon those contained in the United States’ Constitution.[21] While all of the relevant provisions are not identical in terms, they both enshrine, in very similar language, the key concept that judicial power is vested in courts established by the Constitution and/or the legislature.[22] Yet despite constitutional challenges to the Model Law in Australia, and also in Canada,[23] as well as to domestic arbitration legislation at state level in Australia,[24] and in some lower courts in the United States,[25] the United States Supreme Court has never had reason to consider in detail whether the Federal Arbitration Act[26] (FAA) is consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution.[27]

However, that has not prevented the issue being the subject of scholarly debate, which has proffered, generally speaking, two theories to justify the FAA’s constitutionality, at least with respect to international commercial arbitration.[28]  The first, chiefly espoused by Peter Rutledge, is that the FAA’s limited grounds for enforcement do not present a judicial integrity problem because courts have developed the ‘manifest disregard’ regime to permit themselves a quick check of the merits of the arbitrators’ decision at a very fundamental level, which, in Rutledge’s view, “rescues the FAA from constitutional infirmity”.[29] Leaving aside the questionable current status of the ‘manifest disregard’ doctrine, including whether it applies at all to international as distinct from domestic arbitration, Rutledge would find little comfort in the TCL case, which not only finds the Model Law constitutional in the absence of a limited merits review, but dismisses the historical existence of (the admittedly broader) review for error of law within English and Australian common law as “obscure in origin”[30] and “a matter for regret.”[31]

The second theory, which has been considered in detail most recently by Roger Perlstadt,[32] is also partly in conflict with the TCL Case.  This is because Perlstadt argues that the FAA potentially infringes Article III of the United States Constitution, because the disputes submitted to arbitration do require the exercise of judicial power (deciding the law and applying it to the facts as determined) in order to be resolved.[33] However, as the unconstitutionality in Perlstadt’s view lies in the non-availability to parties of the elevated levels of impartiality and independence of Article III judges (underpinned by the tenure and salary protections of the Constitution), the fact that parties of their own volition choose to waive these elevated decision-makers in favour of a less constitutionally safeguarded arbitral tribunal, is sufficient to cure the FAA’s potential inconsistency with Article III.[34]

For Perlstadt, the real debate is about the standard of the consent required to waive Article III protections: whether it should be assessed by an objective manifestation of intent consistently with contract law, or whether consent needs instead to be subjectively tested – the disputants knew and understood what they were waiving.[35]  Perlstadt’s concerns about consent lie in part with consumer arbitrations, but he also queries whether sufficient consent is given by non-signatories to arbitration agreements who may be required to arbitrate,[36] or by potentially defrauded parties who, pursuant to the separability doctrine endorsed in the United States in Prima Paint Corp v Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co,[37] may be required to arbitrate the question of the validity of their arbitration agreement.[38]

Emphasising the fundamentally coercive nature of judicial power, the Australian High Court found, by contrast to Perlstadt, that arbitrators do not exercise judicial power. However, the court was similarly reassured that the consensual removal of the issues in dispute by the parties from the purview of courts meant that the Australian Constitution was not infringed. It is not obvious how readily the High Court’s reasoning could be applied to the domestic arbitration,[39] non-signatory and fraud scenarios identified by Perlstadt as perhaps involving ‘compromised’ consent or agreement. Assuming that at some stage an unsuccessful but enterprising arbitrating party has the opportunity and fortitude to assert FAA unconstitutionality arguments at the United States Supreme Court level, it remains to be seen how these competing explanations of judicial power and consent will be analysed.

Beverley Newbold

The author is a Class of 2014 LL.M. student in the International Litigation, Arbitration and Business Regulation program at New York University, having obtained her Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Adelaide, Australia. She is presently on leave from her position as Partner, Dispute Resolution in the Sydney office of the Australian-based international law firm, Minter Ellison, and she has also previously worked as an associate and senior associate in the London litigation and arbitration department of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.