Time Bar for Proceedings: A New Exception to the Rule?

1. Facts of the case

On May 16, 2022, Grupo RLSZ SA filed a motion for review in the context of the preventive bankruptcy proceedings of Comunicacion Entre Rios SA (docket number 35139/2019), because its claim had been declared inadmissible in the verification ruling. After three years of proceedings on the motion, the petitioner withdrew the only piece of evidence still pending production (a witness statement) and requested the judgment to be rendered.

Without conceding the creditor’s procedural motion, the debtor company argued that the proceeding had lapsed, contending that the three-month statute of limitations provided for in article 310 of the Argentine Civil and Commercial Procedure Code had long since expired. It also requested that the creditor be ordered to pay costs.

On September 23, 2025, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss the case for lapse of proceedings. In reaching this decision, the court found that “nearly eight months had elapsed without any action by the petitioner to advance the proceedings,” and that the “subsequent action taken by the petitioner (…) does not remedy the lapse of time that has occurred,” since the debtor had not consented it. Finally, the Court concluded that neither “the status of this proceeding nor the actions the petitioner alleged in connection with other and various motions and the main case file” alter the conclusion reached.

2. Court of Appeals ruling

In addressing the appeal Grupo RLSZ SA filed, the National Court on Commercial Matters, Chamber C, overturned the appealed judgment, set aside the dismissal for lapse of time, and ordered to continue the motion proceedings. The Court based its decision on three main arguments.

First, it emphasized that the statute of limitations on proceedings must be interpreted narrowly and is reserved “for cases in which the party’s conduct allows one to infer a genuine lack of interest in continuing the proceedings.” In this specific case, the Court held that, since the evidence had been produced, it should not be presumed that the appellant had abandoned the proceedings.

Second, it held that the proceedings should continue when the case is at an advanced stage (Argentine Supreme Court Case 323:2498). In this case, the Court found that the evidentiary phase was practically complete, since the parties had produced the evidence obtained through subpoenas, a computer forensic report, and an accounting report.

Third, citing case law from the Argentine Supreme Court, the Court held that the statute of limitations on proceedings must be applied “without resorting to excessive or ritualistic formalism” (cases 313:1156, 319:1616, 322:2943, and 323:4116). Therefore, even though the applicable statute of limitations had expired and the debtor had timely raised the issue of the lapse of the proceeding, the Court concluded that admitting the motion would imply disregarding the conduct of the party filing the motion and engaging in excessive formalism, given the evidence in the record.  
 

3. Conclusion

The ruling discussed here is interesting because it rejects the lapse of the proceeding even though the applicable procedural deadline had expired and the motion was filed in a timely manner, even when the debtor had consented to the creditor’s most recent procedural act. Further, the Court did not ground its ruling on the exceptions to the expiration of the proceeding provided for in article 313 of the Argentine Civil and Commercial Procedure Code, but rather on a restrictive interpretation of the legal principle, the advanced stage of the proceedings, and the need to avoid excessively formalistic rulings.