The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Veirano Advogados

Work +55 21 3824 4747
Fax +55 21 2262 4247
Brasilia, Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo

Mariana Villela

Work +55 21 3824 4747
Veirano Advogados

Work Department

Antitrust & Competition, Dispute Resolution, Information Technology & Communications and Corporate Integrity & Compliance




Mariana Villela is a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Law and Corporate Integrity & Compliance practice groups at Veirano Advogados.

Ms. Villela’s experience in antitrust and competition law involves general advice on Brazilian competition law, including advice in relation to day-to-day business practices, risk assessment of specific mergers and commercial practices, merger notifications, challenges to merger notifications before competition authorities, representation of clients in procedures involving anticompetitive practices, litigation involving antitrust issues and preparation of compliance programs. She has acted in many antitrust/competition cases, merger cases and cases involving anticompetitive conduct, including international cartel cases and cases involving abuses of a dominant position.

According to Chambers and Partners, Ms. Villela earns praise from clients for having “a brilliant academic background, giving her amazing insight into the legal and economic aspects of competition and antitrust” (Chambers Latin America, 2009). Quotes by clients confirm that “she cuts right to the chase and never wastes time” (Chambers Latin America, 2010), that she is a "tremendous lawyer: very down-to-earth and pragmatic" (Chambers Latin America, 2011) and "proactive and thorough, and great for practical and strategic thinking" (Chambers Latin America, 2012).

Ms. Villela is a frequent speaker on antitrust and competition law and teaches post-graduate courses at Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-RJ).

Mariana also assists clients with respect to corporate integrity, anticorruption and compliance issues. Her expertise in this area involves the identification and assessment of risks associated with violation of anti-corruptions laws, investigations in the context of M&A due diligences, internal audits carried out in the regular course of companies’ day-to-day business, management of crisis, training employees in compliance aspects, among others. Mariana has worked together with foreign counsel in cases involving investigations of violation of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) and the UK Bribery Act and has advised clients under local laws as to how to proceed when identifying corruption practices.


Portuguese and English


American Bar Association (ABA), International Associate, Antitrust and International Law Sections
Brazilian Institute for Studies in Competition, Consumer and International Trade Law (IBRAC), Officer
International Bar Association (IBA), Antitrust and Anticorruption Committees
World Services Group (WSG)
Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) – Rio de Janeiro


Ph.D, Commercial Law, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), 2012 - Thesis: Abuse of Dominance and Distribution Relations (Abuso de Posição Dominante: Condutas de Exclusão em Relações de Distribuição)
LL.M Commercial Law, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), 2008 - Dissertation: Exclusive Dealing and Competition Law (Exclusividade e Direito da Concorrência)
LL.M, Banking and Finance Law, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), University of London, UK, 1999
LL.B, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), 1995


Competition and antitrust

Within: Competition and antitrust

Veirano Advogados' competition team demonstrates an 'eagerness to understand the particularities of the client's needs'. From its offices in Brasília, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro offices, the firm's antitrust lawyers act for companies in high-profile merger filings; the practice has also developed notable experience representing companies challenging merger transactions. For example, the team recently acted for Sky and WarnerMedia in challenging the acquisition of of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company. Cartel and abuse of dominance cases also feature in the department's workload. The 'extremely helpful' Leonardo Maniglia Duarte 'has a holistic vision and an open mind'. Mariana Villela heads the department, which also counts a number of experienced associates.

[back to top]

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • CommuniquĂ© on Equity Crowdfunding Is Officially Published

    By way of background, in January 2019, the Capital Markets Board (“ CMB ”) had issued an announcement on its website on the Draft CommuniquĂ© on Equity Crowdfunding [1] . The CMB has now officially published the CommuniquĂ© on Crowdfunding No. III-35/A (“ CommuniquĂ© ”), on October 3, 2019. The CommuniquĂ© entered into force as of October 3, 2019.
  • Beneficial Ownership Concept new interpretation from the Russian federal tax service

    The recent interpretative letter issued by the Russian Federal Tax Services (“FTS”) on 08th August 2019, has provided further guidance as to the application of the Beneficial Ownership Concept, further to the letter initially provided on the 12th of April 2018 which adopted a strict approach of the concept. 
  • Cyprus and Netherlands Double Tax Treaty Update

    Cyprus has concluded the negotiations for the avoidance of double taxation with the Netherlands. The double tax treaty was agreed at technocratic level in Hague. It is expected to be signed by the end of 2019 or early in 2020.
  • Vacancy - Senior Corporate Lawyer

    The Senior Corporate Lawyer, who will be reporting to Partners, will be working with both the firm’s legal team as well as the financial services team. The successful candidate will be requested to show initiative, take on certain responsibilities within the firm, work in a multinational environment and will immediately be given the opportunity to further advance their career within the law firm.

    The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on February 26, 2019, in the “Danish Beneficial Ownership Cases”, can be perceived as a landmark on the interpretation of the Beneficial Ownership concept under the Interest and Royalties Directive (IRD) and the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD).
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‘centre of life test’ in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of  ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan   [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the “Regulations”). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess  Surinder Singh  cases that appear before them.

    Italian rules on jointventures concerning public procurement and concession contracts are set out inlight of the European legal framework provided for in Directive 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. The European rules aim to ensurethe best use of public money so that EU citizens benefit from strategicinvestments and services at fair prices. In this context, public procurementand concessions represent key instruments that need to be regulated and standardisedin order to ensure free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and freedomto provide services.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a  sole representative visa  is not “a  majority shareholder in the overseas business”.