Argentina still lacks a National Law on class actions (that include actions concerning rights claims with a collective impact and claims where homogenous asset rights of a class are claimed), although the need for regulation is increasing.
In 2009, the Argentine Supreme Court recognized the right to bring class actions in re “Halabi” (See Marval News #81), and encouraged Congress to regulate on them. Later, the Court intervened by passing Resolution No. 32/2014, procedural rules that judges must follow for the enrollment of class actions in the Public Registry of Collective Actions. Through Resolution No. 12/2016, the Court provided further rules for regulating collective actions in national and federal courts. At that point, the Court delved deeper into the procedural rules created by the previous Resolution to ensure the practical efficiency of the Registry and to reinforce its original objectives.
At the same time, rulings with different interpretations of the guidelines adopted by the Court were handed down in an attempt to mitigate the different problems that our country faced with respect to regulation of class actions.
While in the United States, where class actions have been regulated for almost 80 years, there are attempts to abate the conflicts that reckless litigation generates, in Argentina we still lack regulation of such actions.
Currently, there are six class action bills before Congress: five[1] of them are pending before the House of Representatives and one[2] is pending before the Senate. Since 2005, at least 19[3] bills have lost parliamentary status.
Moreover, within the framework of the “Justice 2020” program from the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights in the civilian axis 3.2, a drafting committee is currently preparing a collective procedures bill.
This scenario is a reflection of the interest that is being given to the subject and we hope will result in the sanction of an appropriate and modern regulation of class actions that will take into consideration the problems that countries, that have recognized such actions for many years now, have already dealt with.
[1] Bill 5356-D/2016 introduced by Rep. Tonelli on 8/22/2016; Bill 7798-D/2016 introduced by Reps. David, Tomassi, Isa y Rubin on 11/3/2016; Bill 0345-D/2017 introduced by Rep. Negri on 3/7/17; Bill 2710-D/2017 introduced by Rep. Hers Cabral on 5/24/2017; y Bill 2847-D/2017 introduced by Rep. Camaño on 5/31/2017.
[2] Bill S-3716/2016 introduced by Sens. Sacnun, Perotti, Almirón, García, Pilatti Vergara, Godoy, Labado, Guastavino y Fernandez Sagasti on 9/22/2016.
[3] Fourteen bills were introduced before the House of Representatives,: 3698-D-2005; 1607-D-2007; 2199-D-2009; 5996-D-2010; 6442-D-2010; 4033-D-2011; 2748-D-2012; 538-D-2013; 7200-D-2013; 153-D-2014; 1045-D-2014; 826-D-2015; 4527-D-2015; y 6158-D-2015; and five bills were introduced before the Senate: S-3396/10; S-1468/12; S-66/13; S-1909/14; y S-38/15.
This insight is a brief comment on legal news in Argentina; it does not purport to be an exhaustive analysis or to provide legal advice.