Mass Sovereign Debt Litigation: A Computer-Assisted Analysis of the Argentina Bond Litigation

This Article presents a computer-assisted analysis of the first large-scale mass litigation of sovereign debt claims. Between 2002 and 2016, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against Argentina in the United States, virtually all in the Southern District of New York. Historically, litigation against a foreign government would have involved a few hedge funds that had invested in debt at distressed prices. Argentina faced thousands of investors, including small retail bondholders, in litigation that more closely resembled a mass tort or federal multidistrict litigation than any prior episode involving a sovereign’s debt default. To study this sprawling litigation, this Article combines traditional analysis of court records with computer-assisted analysis of dockets and hearing transcripts using machine learning techniques. It provides the most comprehensive account of the Argentina bond litigation and advances the literature on legal enforcement in sovereign debt markets, demonstrating that a wide range of investment funds and even retail investors can finance and aggressively pursue litigation against a foreign state. The Article develops metrics to measure the intensity of litigation, shows that a relative handful of cases and litigants generated disproportionate activity, and reveals patterns in how groups of plaintiffs competed and coordinated. The findings suggest that, despite recent reforms designed to reduce litigation, sovereign debt litigation is here to stay

Mass Sovereign Debt Litigation: A Computer-Assisted Analysis of the Argentina Bond Litigation

This Article presents a computer-assisted analysis of the first large-scale mass litigation of sovereign debt claims. Between 2002 and 2016, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against Argentina in the United States, virtually all in the Southern District of New York. Historically, litigation against a foreign government would have involved a few hedge funds that had invested in debt at distressed prices. Argentina faced thousands of investors, including small retail bondholders, in litigation that more closely resembled a mass tort or federal multidistrict litigation than any prior episode involving a sovereign’s debt default. To study this sprawling litigation, this Article combines traditional analysis of court records with computer-assisted analysis of dockets and hearing transcripts using machine learning techniques. It provides the most comprehensive account of the Argentina bond litigation and advances the literature on legal enforcement in sovereign debt markets, demonstrating that a wide range of investment funds and even retail investors can finance and aggressively pursue litigation against a foreign state. The Article develops metrics to measure the intensity of litigation, shows that a relative handful of cases and litigants generated disproportionate activity, and reveals patterns in how groups of plaintiffs competed and coordinated. The findings suggest that, despite recent reforms designed to reduce litigation, sovereign debt litigation is here to stay

Justiça Global: Por que não jurisdições estatais em disputas financeiras transnacionais?

The article brings the debate about Global Justice to the centre stage of the Sovereign Debt Restructuring (SDRs) field. The judicial system that intervenes in sovereign debt conflicts was not on the agenda of the last reform processes activated in this field. In the NML Capital vs. Argentina (NML) trial, judges from different instances and different jurisdictions issued declarations of the same dimensions related to the same object of litigation. The article makes a comparative analysis of the argumentative strategies that judges used at the time of justifying their positions in order to show the tensions in which they incurred. It is explained that: a) these tensions are the result of agents –the judges– that must take decisions in a context of crossroads where the expected option in accordance with usual legal practices would undermine their own position in the field of sovereign debt market; b) these crossroads are rooted in the structural limits of the judicial system in which these agents operate. Contrary to what official statements postulate, it is argued that these limits conspire against the possibility that state courts provide Justice in transnational disputes, in which they must judge another equally sovereign State.Este artigo coloca o debate sobre Justiça Global no centro do campo da Reestruturação da Dívida Soberana (REDS). O sistema de justiça que intervém nos conflitos da dívida soberana não fazia parte da agenda dos últimos processos de reforma ativados neste campo. No litigio NML Capital vs. Argentina (NML), juízes de diferentes instâncias e diferentes jurisdições pronunciaram-se sobre as mesmas dimensões do mesmo objeto litigioso. Este artigo traz uma análise comparativa das estratégias argumentativas que estes juízes utilizaram para justificar suas posições e para mostrar as tensões em que incorreram. Explica-se então que: 1) essas tensões são o resultado de agentes –os juízes– que devem tomar decisões no contexto da encruzilhadas em que a opção esperada de acordo com as práticas legais habituais minaria sua própria posição no campo de mercado de dívida soberana; 2) essas encruzilhadas têm suas raízes nos limites estruturais do sistema de justiça, na qual que esses agentes operam. Contra o que postulam os discursos hegemônicos neste campo, argumenta-se que estes limites conspiram contra a possibilidade dos tribunais estatais de brindar soluções Justas em disputas que devem julgar a outro Estado igualmente soberano e que excede-os em sua escala.Fil: Manzo, Alejandro Gabriel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales; Argentin