Brazil has formally initiated a dispute at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against the US over new tariff measures. According to Brazil, the US has imposed a blanket 10% duty on all Brazilian products and an additional 40% duty on specific goods of Brazilian origin. Brazil argues that these measures violate the US' obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), particularly because the US opted for unilateral tariff actions instead of following the WTO's dispute resolution procedures.

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Brazil and throughout the world are met, see Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Brazilian merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Brazil? Release of relevant institutional documents Since the enactment of the Brazilian Competition Law (No. 12,529/2011) (Brazilian Competition Law) in 2012, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) has focused in increasing its institutionalization by issuing guidelines and other instruments on relevant topics, such as gun-jumping practices, remedies in merger cases, and the review of mergers. CADE’s most recent merger-control guidelines were issued in 2024: (i) the guidelines on the review of non-horizontal mergers (the so called ‘V+ Guidelines’), which aim at strengthening the authority’s toolkit towards the assessment of merger cases in Brazil together with the horizontal merger guidelines (the so called ‘H Guidelines’); and (ii) directions on best practices for adoption of trustees or similar devices in mergers or other antitrust cases (the so called ‘Trustee

Brazil has requested World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute consultations with the US concerning additional duties imposed on Brazilian products following two investigations under section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. The request concerns an additional 25% ad valorem duty on all Brazilian products and an additional 12.5% ad valorem duty on Brazilian products, following an investigation focused on allegations relating to forced labour. Brazil contends that the duties are inconsistent with various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and the Understanding Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. After 60 days, if consultations fail to resolve the dispute, Brazil may request adjudication by a panel.

MLex: The Brazilian data protection authority this year aims to start ‘with assertiveness’ the process for Brazil and the EU to comply with each other's rules on data transfers, and to formalise Brazil's adhesion process to the Council of Europe's Convention 108+, said agency Director Arthur Sabbat.

Arbitration analysis: The Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (CAM-CCBC) is pleased to announce the launch of its Public Arbitration Awards, a groundbreaking initiative which consolidates arbitral awards rendered in CAM-CCBC administered proceedings which have entered the public domain through legal or judicial means. Written by Rodrigo Garcia da Fonseca, president, and Ricardo de Carvalho Aprigliano, vice-president of CAM-CCBC.

Law360: Low-cost Brazilian airline GOL Linhas has revealed a proposed Chapter 11 plan after reaching a global settlement with creditors, major investor Abra Group Limited and other stakeholders that would extinguish US$2.5bn in debt before its January confirmation hearing.

Arbitration analysis: The São Paulo State Appellate Court vacated an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of sufficient disclosure by one of the arbitrators. The decision presents multiple topics, but the discussion on the effects of lack of disclosure will probably produce more immediate impact on Brazilian practice. It held that an arbitrator's failure to disclose ongoing and significant professional relationships with counsel of one party undermined confidence in impartiality, warranting nullification of the award. This decision underscores the delicate balance between ensuring transparency and avoiding disclosure overload. The case prompts consideration on whether Brazil's arbitration regime requires additional legislative intervention or refined institutional practices to guide arbitrators and parties. Written by Martim Della Valle (partner at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados) and Felipe Sartório de Melo (arbitration counsel at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados).

Raphael Brandão Moreira and another v ESHO-Empresa de Serviços Hospitalares SA Recurso Especial n 2.101.901/SP, Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Brasil

Law360, London: BHP may avoid criminal contempt proceedings over allegations that it filed a case in Brazil to block English proceedings linked to the Fundão dam collapse after the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

Arbitration analysis: In an arbitration that spanned almost a decade, why was no compensation awarded despite a treaty breach being found? Manthi Wickramasooriya, an associate solicitor in the London office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, explains the tribunal’s reasoning.

Dear [insert name of authorised representative of the counter-party], [insert name of agreement]: [insert client name] and [insert counter-party name] 1 [As you are aware, we OR We] act for [insert client name] (our client). 2 Our client and [insert counter-party name] ([insert short name]) are parties to an [insert agreement name] dated [insert date] (Agreement). 3 We are instructed that [insert counter-party short name] has breached the Agreement by failing to pay £[insert amount] (Debt) to our client by [insert due date] as required by Clause [insert number]. This constitutes a breach of [an essential OR a fundamental] term, as recognised by Clause [insert number]. 4 [Interest has accrued on the Debt from [(and including)] [insert date] in accordance with Clause

Dear [insert name of authorised representative of the counter-party], [insert name of agreement]: [insert client name] and [insert counter-party name] 1 [As you are aware, we OR We] act for [insert client name] (our client). 2 Our client and [insert counter-party name] ([insert short name]) are parties to a [insert agreement name] dated [insert date] (Agreement). 3 We are instructed that [insert counter-party short name] has breached the Agreement by failing to pay £[insert amount] (Debt) to our client by [insert due date] as required by Clause [insert number]. 4 [Time is of the essence for payments required by [the Agreement OR Clause [insert number]] in accordance with Clause [insert number]. OR Our client asserts that time is of the essence for payments required by [the Agreement OR Clause [insert number]], based on the following considerations [insert considerations].] 5 [Interest has accrued on the Debt from [(and including)] [insert date] in accordance with Clause [insert number] and as at the date of this letter amounts to £[insert amount]. Interest will continue to accrue until the Debt is paid in full and is