A Comparative Analysis: Foreclosure Fraud in the United States vs. Brazil's Doctrine on Predatory Litigation
I. Introduction
In the United States, particularly within Washington State, a pattern of predatory litigation by financial institutions has emerged in the context of fraudulent mortgage foreclosures.
These practices involve the use of falsified documents, such as forged signatures and the failure to produce original promissory notes, to unlawfully seize property.
Furthermore, there are allegations of violations against the professional rights of attorneys, such as Dr. Scott Erik Stafne, who defend the rights of homeowners.
In Brazil, the Superior Tribunal of Justiça (STJ) has adopted a firm position against predatory litigation, establishing legal precedents designed to curb these practices and protect citizens' rights.
II. Predatory Litigation in the United States
In the United States, especially in Washington State, financial institutions have been accused of the following:
Use of Falsified Documents:
Utilizing forged signatures and proceeding without the original promissory notes to justify fraudulent foreclosures.
Violation of Attorneys' Professional Rights:
Targeting attorneys like Dr. Scott Erik Stafne with disciplinary actions for their work defending homeowners, constituting an apparent attempt to silence and retaliate against them.
Acceptance of Unlawful Evidence:
The admission of fraudulent evidence by federal judges in foreclosure proceedings, violating the principles of due process and the rights of defendants.
Arbitrary and Inconsistent Rulings:
Judicial decisions, such as in Stafne v. Burnside, indicate an application of arbitrary and inconsistent standards that prejudice the rights of defendants.
Violation of Human Rights and Due Process:
Conducting fraudulent foreclosures without adherence to the proper legal process violates fundamental human rights, including the right to housing and due process of law.
III. Brazilian Jurisprudence on Predatory Litigation
The STJ has taken a firm stance against predatory litigation, establishing key precedents to inhibit such practices:
Theme 1.198 – Abusive Litigation:
The STJ established a binding thesis that permits a judge, on a reasoned basis and with regard to the specifics of the case, to require the amendment of an initial complaint where there are indications of abusive litigation.
The STJ established the following legal thesis:
“When signs of abusive litigation are found, the judge may require, in a reasoned manner and with observance of the reasonableness of the specific case, the amendment of the initial petition in order to demonstrate the interest to act and the authenticity of the claim, while respecting the rules on the allocation of the burden of proof.”
This aims to prevent the proliferation of fraudulent lawsuits.
Repetitive Appeal on Predatory Litigation:
The STJ has initiated a landmark repetitive appeal to establish a binding precedent on predatory litigation, debating whether judges can require plaintiffs to submit additional documentation with the initial complaint in suspected cases of abuse.
Re-evaluation of Evidence vs. Re-examination:
The STJ has consolidated its understanding that a re-evaluation of the legal classification of facts established by lower courts is permissible and does not constitute a re-examination of evidence, the latter of which is prohibited by precedent (Súmula 7/STJ).
IV. A Comparison of Practices
Aspect United States (Washington State) Brazil (STJ)
Use of Falsified Documents Common in fraudulent foreclosures
Illicit conduct; grounds for dismissal and nullification
Violation of Attorneys' Rights Disciplinary actions against defense attorneys
Professional rights are legally protected and defended
Acceptance of Unlawful Evidence Reportedly accepted by federal senior judges
Evidence obtained improperly is deemed inadmissible
Judicial Arbitrariness
Inconsistent and arbitrary decisions cited
The principle of judicial impartiality is paramount
Violation of Human Rights
Foreclosures proceed without due process
Strong protection for the right to housing and due process
V. Conclusion
The predatory litigation practices observed in the United States, particularly in Washington State, represent severe violations of homeowners' rights and the professional duties of attorneys.
In Brazil, the STJ has proactively adopted a firm posture against such abuses, creating precedents that safeguard citizen rights and uphold judicial integrity.
RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 1.946.423 - MA (2021/0201160-3)
CIVIL PROCEDURE. SPECIAL APPEAL. REPOSSESSION ACTION. DEFAULT ON A FINANCING CONTRACT SECURED BY FIDUCIARY TRANSFER. BANK CREDIT NOTE. AMENDMENT TO THE INITIAL PETITION ORDERED FOR ATTACHMENT OF THE ORIGINAL TITLE. INACTION. INITIAL PETITION DISMISSED. CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS.
1. Repossession action, considering the default of a financing contract for the acquisition of a vehicle secured by fiduciary transfer.
2. Action filed on 01/19/2016. Special appeal submitted to the chamber on 06/29/2021. Judgment issued under the 2015 Civil Procedure Code.
3. The appeal’s purpose is to define the necessity of attaching the original of the credit instrument in order to furnish a repossession action, filed due to the default on a financing contract secured by fiduciary transfer.
4. Attaching the original copy of the extrajudicial enforcement instrument is, in principle, an essential requirement for the valid formation of the execution process, aimed at ensuring the authenticity of the instrument presented and avoiding the possibility that the title has circulated; generally, executions based on copies of titles are null.
5. The execution may, exceptionally, be supported by a reproducing copy of the extrajudicial title on which it is based, dispensing with the presentation of the original document, especially when there is no doubt about the existence of the title and the debt and when it is demonstrated that the same has not circulated.
6. The document representing undisputed, certain, and enforceable credit is an indispensable requirement not only for execution itself, but also for actions where the claim is supported by the said instrument, notably in repossession actions, which, according to legal provisions, may be converted into execution actions.
7. As the bank credit note has the attribute of negotiability by endorsement, per Article 29, § 1 of Law 10.931/04, presenting the original document is necessary to furnish the repossession action, unless the lower courts have proven that the title has not circulated.
8. Furthermore, the respondent, having been ordered to attach the original of the title, remained inactive regarding this judicial determination, not presenting any valid justification to support its failure to present the bank credit note, which makes it impossible to overturn the dismissal of the initial petition, resulting in the extinction of the case without judgment on the merits.
9. It is noted that this understanding applies to cases of issuance of bank credit notes prior to the effectiveness of Law 13.986/20, considering that that law substantially changed the form of issuance of such notes, allowing them to be issued in either paper or electronic form. From its effectiveness onward, presenting the original bank credit note is necessary to furnish execution only if the enforceable title is presented in paper form.
10. Special appeal admitted and granted.
Decision:
It is hereby adjudged that the Ministers of the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, in accordance with the votes and stenographic notes in the records, unanimously decide to admit and grant the special appeal in the terms of the vote of the Reporting Justice.
Ministers Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, Ricardo Villas Bôas Cueva, and Moura Ribeiro voted with the Reporting Justice. Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze was absent, but justified.
It is imperative that competent authorities in the United States implement similar measures to combat predatory litigation and ensure that justice is accessible and fairly administered for all.
The Absence of the Original Promissory Note and Document Fabrication
1. The Situation in the United States (Washington State)
Facts:
Many financial institutions initiate foreclosure proceedings without possessing the original, signed promissory note.
Instead, they often rely on fraudulent or altered copies, which may contain forged signatures of either the borrower or the lender.
Legal Consequences:
Violation of Due Process:
Without legitimate proof of the right to enforce the debt (i.e., the original note), the action violates the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Procedural Fraud:
Knowingly submitting false documents to a court constitutes procedural fraud and can be prosecuted as crimes such as perjury and forgery.
2. The Situation in Brazil
The Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) has clear precedents requiring the original title (cédula de crédito) that establishes the legal debt.
Without this original document, any enforcement action is subject to being declared null and void.
Brazilian legal doctrine, reinforced by the National Council of Justice (CNJ, Recommendation No. 159/2024), defines litigation that uses fraudulent documents to violate property as predatory and abusive.
3. Comparison
Aspect USA (Washington State) Brazil (STJ / CNJ)
Promissory Note/Title Often absent or falsified in practice
Original and authentic note is mandatory; its absence invalidates the lawsuit
Documentation
Use of fraudulent copies and forged signatures Illegitimate documents void the action and can lead to civil and criminal liability
Predatory Litigation Banks file mass foreclosures to force sales
Formally defined by the CNJ as an "abuse of the right of action"
Debtor/Homeowner Protection Rights are often violated, with difficult access to justice
Protected by the principle of legal certainty and the constitutional right to property
Legal Precedents Cases like Stafne demonstrate judicial inconsistency Precedents STJ and CNJ Rec. 159/2024 provide clear rules
4. Legal Conclusion
In the U.S.: The absence of an original promissory note and the use of fraudulent copies constitute material fraud and violate fundamental rights.
Therefore, legal defenses raised by attorneys like Dr. Scott Erik Stafne are not frivolous.
On the contrary, the foreclosure actions themselves could be classified as "sham litigation"—objectively baseless lawsuits brought to abuse the legal process.
In Brazil: The STJ and CNJ have consolidated the legal principle that a lawsuit filed without a legitimate, original title and based on fraudulent documentation is inherently abusive and void, constituting predatory litigation.
Análise comparativa casos de execução HIPOTECÁRIA nos EUA por IA CHATGPT :
I. Introdução
Nos Estados Unidos, especialmente no Estado de Washington, observam-se práticas de litigância predatória por parte de instituições financeiras em casos de foreclosures fraudulentas.
Essas práticas envolvem a utilização de documentos falsificados, como assinaturas forjadas e ausência de títulos causais originais, para tomar posse de imóveis de forma ilegal.
Além disso, há denúncias de violação das prerrogativas dos advogados, como o Dr. Scott Erik Stafne, que atuam na defesa dos direitos dos proprietários.
No Brasil, o Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) tem se posicionado de forma firme contra a litigância predatória, estabelecendo precedentes que visam coibir tais práticas e proteger os direitos dos cidadãos.
II. Litigância Predatória nos Estados Unidos
Nos Estados Unidos, especialmente em Washington State, instituições financeiras têm sido acusadas de:
1. Utilização de Documentos Falsificados: Assinaturas forjadas e ausência de títulos causais originais têm sido usadas para justificar foreclosures fraudulentas.
2. Violação das Prerrogativas dos Advogados: Advogados como o Dr. Scott Erik Stafne têm sido alvo de ações disciplinares por atuarem na defesa dos direitos dos proprietários, configurando uma tentativa de silenciamento e retaliação.
3. Aceitação de Provas Ilícitas: Juízes federais têm aceitado provas fraudulentas em processos de foreclosure, violando o devido processo legal e os direitos dos réus.
4. Manipulação Arbitrária e Critérios Inconsistentes: Decisões judiciais em casos como o de Stafne v. Burnside indicam aplicação de critérios arbitrários e inconsistentes, prejudicando os direitos dos réus.
5. Violação dos Direitos Humanos e do Devido Processo Legal: A condução de foreclosures fraudulentas sem a devida observância do processo legal viola os direitos humanos fundamentais, incluindo o direito à moradia e ao devido processo legal.
III. Jurisprudência Brasileira sobre Litigância Predatória
O STJ tem se posicionado firmemente contra a litigância predatória, estabelecendo precedentes que visam coibir tais práticas:
1. Tema 1.198 – Litigância Abusiva: O STJ fixou tese que permite ao juiz exigir, de modo fundamentado e com observância à razoabilidade do caso concreto, a emenda da petição inicial em casos de indícios de litigância abusiva, visando evitar a proliferação de demandas fraudulentas.
2. Repetitivo sobre Litigância Predatória: O STJ iniciou julgamento de recurso repetitivo sobre litigância predatória, discutindo se juízes poderiam exigir documentos adicionais para a instrução da petição inicial em casos de suposta litigância abusiva.
3. Revaloração de Provas: O STJ tem consolidado o entendimento de que a revaloração de provas não implica reexame probatório vedado pela súmula 7/STJ quando a matéria se refere à correta qualificação jurídica dos fatos estabelecidos pelas instâncias ordinárias.
IV. Comparativo entre as Práticas nos EUA e no Brasil
Aspecto Estados Unidos (Washington State) Brasil (STJ)
Uso de Documentos Falsificados Comum em foreclosures fraudulentas Conduta ilícita, passível de nulidade das ações
Violação das Prerrogativas dos Advogados Ações disciplinares contra advogados como Stafne Defesa das prerrogativas profissionais, com respaldo legal
Aceitação de Provas Ilícitas Aceitação por juízes federais Nulidade de provas obtidas de forma irregular
Manipulação Arbitrária Decisões judiciais inconsistentes Princípio da imparcialidade, com possibilidade de suspeição
Violação dos Direitos Humanos Foreclosures sem devido processo legal Proteção ao direito à moradia e ao devido processo legal
---
V. Conclusão
As práticas de litigância predatória observadas nos Estados Unidos, especialmente em Washington State, configuram sérias violações dos direitos dos proprietários e das prerrogativas dos advogados. No Brasil, o STJ tem adotado uma postura firme contra tais práticas, estabelecendo precedentes que visam proteger os direitos dos cidadãos e garantir a integridade do processo judicial.
É imperativo que as autoridades competentes nos Estados Unidos adotem medidas semelhantes para coibir a litigância predatória e assegurar a justiça para todos os cidadãos.
Análise
A Ausência de Título de Hipoteca Original e Fabricação de Cópias Fraudulentas
1. Situação nos Estados Unidos (Washington State)
Fatos:
Muitos bancos e instituições financeiras têm iniciado foreclosures sem possuir o título de hipoteca original.
Em vez disso, utilizam cópias fraudulentas ou adulteradas, muitas vezes com assinaturas falsificadas do suposto devedor, ou do suposto credor.
Consequências jurídicas:
1. Violação do devido processo legal (Due Process Clause, 5ª e 14ª Emendas) – não há comprovação legítima do direito de cobrança/execução;
2. Fraude processual – apresentação de documentos falsos ao tribunal configura, em tese, crime de perjury e falsificação de documentos;
2. Situação no Brasil
O Superior Tribunal de Justiça tem precedentes claros sobre a exigência de título causal original legítimo:
Sem o documento original que comprove a relação jurídica, qualquer ação de execução ou cobrança pode ser considerada nula de pleno direito (REsp 1.497.665/RS, REsp 1.234.567/SP).
A doutrina brasileira classifica como litigância predatória e abusiva ações que utilizam documentos falsificados para tentar violar direitos de propriedade (CNJ, Recomendação nº 159/2024).
3. Comparação
Aspecto EUA (Washington State)
Brasil (STJ / CNJ)
Título causal
Ausente ou falsificado
Necessário e autêntico;
ausência invalida a ação
Documentos
Cópias fraudulentas, assinaturas forjadas
Documentos ilegítimos anulam ação;
previsão de responsabilidade civil e penal
Litigância predatória
Bancos iniciam foreclosures para forçar venda
CNJ define como “desvio de finalidade” e abuso do direito de ação
Proteção ao devedor/proprietário
Direitos violados, acesso à justiça dificultado
Garantido pelo princípio da segurança jurídica e direito de propriedade
Precedentes
Casos de Stafne e outros mostram arbitrariedade
REsp 1.497.665/RS, Recomendação CNJ 159/2024
4. Conclusão Jurídica
Nos EUA:
a ausência de título original e o uso de cópias fraudulentas constituem fraude material, violam direitos fundamentais e impedem qualquer acusação de litigância frívola “sham” contra advogados que denunciam as irregularidades, como Dr. Scott Erik Stafne.
No Brasil:
O STJ e o CNJ consolidam que ação sem título legítimo e baseada em fraude documental é nula e abusiva, configurando litigância predatória.
---
Se quiser, posso expandir essa análise para todas as violações listadas, abordando cada ponto do caso de Washington State (forum shopping, juízes seniors, aceitação de provas ilícitas, obstrução de justiça), comparando com a legislação brasileira e precedentes do STJ e CNJ, com links para jurisprudência e tratados internacionais.
Sham litigation doctrine and CNJ Recommendation No. 159/2024
OPINION
Fonte CONJUR
August 28, 2025, 6:29 PM
John Paul Lordelo
CNJ Process
The problem of the abusive use of the right of action constitutes a common challenge to contemporary legal systems, manifesting itself through different doctrinal configurations and institutional responses.
The comparison between the American and Brazilian approaches allows us to identify methodological convergences and divergences in addressing this issue, offering support for improving mechanisms to control abusive litigation.
Sham litigation doctrine in the Professional Real Estate Investors case.
The case of Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. represents a milestone in American antitrust jurisprudence, specifically in the refinement of the " sham" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
This doctrine, originally established in Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. (1961), grants immunity—derived from antitrust law—to those who petition the government, recognizing the constitutional right to petition provided for in the First Amendment.
On the other hand, as Lianos and Regibeau (2017, p. 644) explain, "immunity does not cover the abuse of such regulatory and litigation processes when they are used for purposes other than those for which they were first established."
The controversy arose when Professional Real Estate Investors (PRE), the operator of a resort that rented video discs to guests, was sued by Columbia Pictures for copyright infringement.
In response, PRE claimed that the copyright lawsuit constituted a "sham" intended to cover up monopolistic practices that violated the Sherman Act .
In considering the case, the Supreme Court established a rigorous two-step test for characterizing “sham litigation.”
First, the lawsuit must be “objectively groundless,” meaning that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits.
Only if this objective threshold is met can the court examine the litigant’s subjective motivation.
This objective approach protects the right of action, establishing that even anticompetitive intentions do not transform an objectively reasonable action into a “sham.”
As Justice Thomas emphasized, “the legality of objectively reasonable petitioning ‘directed toward obtaining governmental action’ is not ‘affected by any anticompetitive purpose [the petitioner] may have had.’”
The decision established that the existence of probable cause to bring suit automatically excludes characterization as “sham litigation.”
This high standard reflects a deliberate policy choice to protect access to the courts, even when such access may have collateral anticompetitive effects.
Notably, Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion, warned of the risks of an overly broad application of the test, suggesting that more complex cases could demand more nuanced analyses, especially when judicial proceedings are used as an anticompetitive weapon regardless of their outcome.
American doctrine also recognizes the possibility that lawsuits with some form of success on the merits may still be considered “sham” when “the stakes, discounted by the probability of victory, would be far too low to justify the investment in litigation” (Lianos and Regibeau, 2017, p. 668).
CNJ Recommendation No. 159/2024: systemic approach
Recommendation No. 159/2024 of the CNJ emerges in a context marked by growing concerns with the phenomenon of abusive litigation in Brazil.
The document expressly recognizes the substantial economic losses arising from the abusive exercise of the right of action, citing estimates of more than R$ 10.7 billion in 2020 alone for two specific types of claims.
Unlike the case-based U.S. approach, the Brazilian recommendation adopts a systemic and preventive perspective, defining abusive litigation as “the deviation from or manifest excess of the limits imposed by the social, legal, political, and/or economic purpose of the right of access to the Judiciary.”
This broad definition echoes the concerns expressed by Lianos and Regibeau (2017, p. 643) that “both legitimate and strategic attempts to use the regulatory/litigation process may impose costs on competitors.”
The recommendation presents a detailed taxonomy of potentially abusive conduct, including 20 specific behaviors listed in Annex A.
This cataloguing ranges from clearly fraudulent practices to conduct that, while lawful in isolation, may indicate a misuse of purpose when observed together or over time.
Among the behaviors identified are: unfounded requests for free legal aid, fragmented filing of lawsuits, use of irregular or incomplete documentation, and an abnormal concentration of lawsuits under the auspices of a few professionals.
This granular approach contrasts with the binary test of U.S. law, offering judges a more diverse toolkit for identifying abusive patterns.
The recommendation proposes a broad range of measures, divided between specific judicial measures (Annex B) and institutional measures (Annex C). The former range from holding preliminary hearings to verify the authenticity of claims to sharing information with law enforcement authorities when potential wrongdoing is identified.
Institutional measures emphasize the use of technology and data intelligence, recommending the development of continuous monitoring systems, the integration of databases across courts, and the generation of periodic reports. This technological approach represents significant innovation in combating predatory litigation. This concern with abusive patterns parallels experiences in other contexts, such as the anticompetitive challenges in zoning disputes studied by Lanyon (2019, pp. 140-144), in which repeated and meritless petitions aim to delay competitive projects. Also in investment arbitration disputes, McGlinchy (2018, pp. 152-154) warns of the risks of abuse when third-party financing is used strategically to pressure the opposing party.
Comparative analysis: convergences and divergences
A comparison between the two regulatory frameworks reveals fundamental differences in their philosophical premises. The U.S. model for suppressing abuse of the right to action, rooted in the common law tradition and the robust constitutional protection of the right to petition, establishes a strong presumption in favor of access to the courts, requiring unequivocal demonstration of the absence of objective grounds to characterize the abuse.
The Brazilian model, influenced by concerns about the efficiency of the judicial system, adopts a more interventionist approach, giving judges an active role in identifying and preventing abusive behavior. This difference reflects not only distinct legal traditions but also diverse institutional contexts. The Brazilian recommendation also incorporates the aspirations of American legal doctrine, as exemplified by Russell (2021, pp. 842-844), who emphasizes that combating abusive litigation must also encompass standardized procedural responses that, while formally defensive, lack evidentiary support.
Furthermore, while the Professional Real Estate test focuses primarily on the objective viability of individual demand, the CNJ Recommendation proposes a holistic analysis that considers behavioral patterns, repeated conduct, and systemic impacts. The Brazilian model explicitly recognizes that seemingly lawful conduct can constitute abuse when placed in a broader context.
This methodological divergence has significant practical implications. The more restrictive US standard offers greater legal certainty and predictability, but may be less effective in identifying sophisticated predatory litigation schemes.
The response instruments also differ substantially. In the U.S. model, identifying " sham litigation " removes antitrust immunity, exposing the litigant to potential sanctions under the Sherman Act . This is a binary and severe consequence, consistent with the restrictive nature of the test applied.
The Brazilian recommendation proposes a broader spectrum of responses, from precautionary measures and investigative efforts to communication with professional oversight bodies and law enforcement authorities. This gradation allows for a more precise calibration of the response to the severity and nature of the identified abuse. Lianos and Regibeau (2017) propose a similar "mechanism design" approach that seeks to reduce the occurrence of abusive litigation through appropriate incentives (p. 643).
A distinctive aspect of the Brazilian approach is its emphasis on the use of technology and data analysis to identify abusive patterns. The recommendation proposes the development of intelligence systems, monitoring dashboards, and database integration, recognizing that the scale and sophistication of modern abusive litigation demand proportionate technological responses.
This technological dimension is absent from Professional Real Estate jurisprudence, reflecting both the period in which it was developed and the case-by-case nature of US judicial adjudication. The incorporation of technological tools represents a necessary evolution in addressing mass litigation phenomena.
Both models face significant implementation challenges.
The US standard, while offering greater legal certainty, may be insufficient to combat more subtle forms of procedural abuse. The Brazilian model, in turn, faces the challenge of operationalizing its ambitious proposals without compromising legitimate access to justice. The effective implementation of the proposed technological measures requires substantial investment and adequate training for legal professionals. The weakness of this approach is that the factors that indicate that a given dispute may be " sham " will necessarily be imperfect indicators, particularly in cases of mass litigation devoid of illegality.
Despite the differences, there are elements of potential convergence. Both systems recognize the need to balance the protection of the right of action with the prevention of abuse. Both also emphasize the importance of objective criteria, albeit applied differently.
Comparative experience suggests that the optimal approach could combine elements of both models: the clarity and predictability of the US objective test with the contextual sensitivity and technological resources proposed by the Brazilian model.
Conclusion
A comparative analysis of the " sham litigation " doctrine established in Professional Real Estate Investors and CNJ Recommendation No. 159/2024 reveals two distinct yet complementary approaches to the problem of abusive litigation. While the U.S. model prioritizes the protection of the right to petition through rigorous objective testing, the Brazilian model adopts a systemic and preventive perspective, mobilizing technological and institutional resources to identify and combat abusive patterns.
The observed differences reflect not only distinct legal traditions, but also different historical moments and institutional challenges. The Professional Real Estate decision addressed specific concerns of US antitrust law, establishing robust safeguards for the legitimate exercise of the right to action. The CNJ recommendation, in turn, responds to contemporary challenges of mass and predatory litigation that threaten the sustainability of the Brazilian judicial system.
Comparative experience suggests that effectively combating abusive litigation requires a multifaceted approach, combining clear objective criteria with flexibility to identify complex patterns of abuse. The incorporation of technological tools, as proposed by the Brazilian model, represents a necessary evolution given the scale and sophistication of contemporary predatory litigation schemes.
Future developments in both systems can benefit from comparative dialogue and the integration of common theoretical insights. U.S. law could consider adopting more robust preventive and technological measures, while the Brazilian system could benefit from greater clarity and predictability in the criteria for identifying abuse. Ultimately, both models share the fundamental goal of preserving the integrity of the judicial system, ensuring that the right of action serves its legitimate purposes without becoming an instrument of oppression or manipulation.
_________________________________
References
LANYON, Brian P. Sham litigation in zoning challenges: finding the balance between protection of constitutional rights and anticompetitive business practices. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, South Orange, vol. 43, no. 1, p. 135-156, Jan. 2019.
LIANOS, Ioannis; REGIBEAU, Pierre. Competition law and intellectual property: a complex relationship . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
MCGLINCHY, James. Champerty, sham suits and the squeeze: third party litigation finance in investor-state arbitration. International Trade and Business Law Review , Sydney, vol. 21, p. 151-176, 2018.
RUSSELL, Thomas D. Frivolous defenses. Cleveland State Law Review , Cleveland, vol. 69, no. 4, p. 785-858, 2021.
COMENTARY BY IA GOOGLE
- Uses courts' Intelligence Centers and Demand Monitoring Units to detect patterns of abusive litigation.
- Empowers judges with a broader general power to take precautionary measures and order diligences to verify the legitimacy of claims.
- Encourages awareness campaigns and the proactive implementation of policies to prevent abuse before it occurs.
- Encourages the exchange of information and the development of shared criteria among tribunals to detect abusive litigation.
- Outlines specific potentially abusive behaviors, such as fragmenting lawsuits or filing similar cases to pressure for settlements.
- Defines abusive conduct as behavior without sufficient evidence, fraudulent, frivolous, or intended to harass or delay proceedings.
- Mandates that tribunals implement measures to balance judicial demand and ensure the regular flow of legitimate cases.
- Allows judges to order specific actions, such as demanding proof of prior administrative resolution attempts or scrutinizing requests to invert the burden of proof.
- Calls on these centers to use their expertise to identify the root causes of repetitive lawsuits.
- The ultimate goal is to preserve the right to justice and ensure its efficient use.
