1. What is the current legal landscape for your practice area in your jurisdiction?

Cross-border enforcement in Brazil has become markedly more predictable since the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015. The recognition regime is codified, the Superior Court of Justice applies it consistently, proceedings are electronic and the outcome of a well-prepared application is now reasonably foreseeable. Volumes have grown, driven by the internationalisation of Brazilian corporate groups, by the expansion of international arbitration and by an active market in distressed and litigation-backed credit.

The centre of gravity has shifted accordingly: the difficult questions are less about whether recognition will be granted than about what follows, such as locating assets, dealing with layered holding structures and confronting sophisticated resistance at the enforcement stage. Public policy remains the principal issue raised as a matter of defence.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in your practice area matters?

First, prepare for Brazilian enforcement before the foreign proceedings begin. Service on a Brazilian-domiciled defendant should be effected through the Hague Service Convention or by letter rogatory from the outset. Service by post or by private agent is the single most common reason for a foreign judgment to fail in Brazil, and it cannot be cured retrospectively, although default is admitted if rightfully recognized in the country of origin. Also, in the enforcement of judgement, it is possible to service an international company through its subsidiary maintained in Brazil, which expedites the process.

Second, secure the assets early. Recognition takes months, and a debtor who sees it coming has time to act. Interim relief is available within the recognition proceedings and through free-standing domestic applications, and a well-evidenced freezing order is usually worth.

Third, be realistic about what the foreign judgment says. A component likely to be characterised as punitive, or relief touching assets subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Brazilian courts, should be identified and addressed when the application is drafted.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in your practice area law in the next 12 months?

The principal threat is delay in the transmission of process abroad, which lies outside the control of the parties and of the Brazilian courts and can add a year or more to an otherwise straightforward application. A second is the residual unpredictability of public policy review, which, although rarely decisive, is difficult to price for clients at the outset.

The opportunities are more substantial. Electronic asset-tracing tools and the courts’ willingness to adopt atypical enforcement measures are improving recovery rates. The market for funded and assigned enforcement claims is expanding, opening a route for creditors who would otherwise write off a foreign judgment. Finally, the debate on accession to the Hague Judgments Convention gives the profession an opening to help shape a regime that would materially improve reciprocal enforcement.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Cross-border enforcement is a long exercise in which the client’s experience depends heavily on expectation-setting. We map the whole path at the outset (recognition, enforcement, asset tracing) with realistic timescales and an assessment of recovery prospects, rather than presenting recognition as the end of the matter. We also present alternatives in regard to asset preservation during the enforcement process if necessary.

We work as a single team with foreign counsel from the first instruction, so that the foreign proceedings are conducted with Brazilian enforcement in mind. Reporting is short, regular and decision-oriented, and fees are agreed in advance and structured to align our interests with actual recovery where the client prefers it.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping your practice area law and how can clients benefit from them?

The electronic case management systems of the Brazilian courts have removed the paper from recognition proceedings and allow filings and hearings to be conducted remotely, reducing cost for foreign clients and bringing more effectiveness. On the enforcement side, the integrated systems for the seizure of bank funds, vehicles and registered assets, together with access to corporate and land registries, have turned asset tracing from a slow investigative exercise into a largely digital one.

Analytics built on the courts’ open data allow better-calibrated forecasts of duration and outcome, and machine translation, used under professional supervision alongside the sworn translations the law requires, has cut both the cost and the lead time of preparing voluminous foreign records.

6. Describe a particularly interesting or complex matter you have advised on recently, and explain the challenges involved, your approach, and the outcome achieved for the client.

Salomão Advogados was recently engaged to defend the interests of a foreign company to enforce a judgement in which the obligation to pay delivered cargo was recognized. This foreign judgement was brought to Brazil due to respondent’s assets located in the country, necessary to pay the amount provided in the award. The first challenge we had to face was to expedite notice of respondent. We used its Brazilian subsidiary and its legal representatives in Brazil, solution that shortened the procedure in several months.