On February 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation published in the Judicial Weekly of the Federation a criterion that sets an important precedent for those involved in commercial disputes: the judicial resolution that orders the suspension of a trial to refer the parties to arbitration can be challenged immediately through the amparo trial.

The matter that gave rise to this precedent is relatively simple to understand. One person sued another in a commercial lawsuit. However, the defendant alleged that there was a prior agreement between the two parties to resolve any dispute through arbitration (commonly known as an arbitration clause or submission clause). The judge, considering this request, decided to suspend the trial and send both parties to settle their dispute before an arbitral tribunal.

The plaintiff –who had originally gone to state courts– He was dissatisfied and decided to file an appeal to challenge that decision. However, the District Court summarily dismissed the claim, arguing that the order to refer the matter to arbitration does not constitute an “irreparable act,” an essential legal requirement for an indirect appeal against acts within a trial to proceed.

The Fifth Collegiate Court for Civil Matters of the First Circuit reversed this position when resolving an appeal. In the isolated thesis I.5o.C.221 C (11a.), said Collegiate Court determined that the resolution ordering the suspension of a jurisdictional proceeding to refer the parties to arbitration does constitute an irreparable act, and therefore indirect amparo proceedings are appropriate against it.

The Court's reasoning rests on two fundamental pillars. First, referring the parties to arbitration is not a mere procedural or technical matter; it is a decision that directly impacts the autonomy of individuals' will. In other words, the right of each person to decide where and how to resolve their legal disputes is a substantive right, not merely a procedural one. When a judge compels someone to arbitrate, they are affecting a fundamental right related to the freedom to structure legal relationships without external interference.

Second, it acknowledges an undeniable practical reality: arbitration involves significant costs. Unlike the state justice system, which is free in Mexico, arbitration requires the payment of arbitrators' fees, the arbitral institution's administrative expenses (in the case of institutional arbitration), and, frequently, fees for specialized lawyers. Depriving a person of the possibility of litigating free of charge before the state courts and forcing them to incur considerable expenses represents a real and immediate economic impact that could not be remedied later, even if the case were won.

This criterion represents an important counterweight to the pro-arbitration trend that has prevailed in Mexican jurisprudence over the last few decades. It does not mean that arbitration is bad or that arbitration clauses are invalid; it simply recognizes that the decision to submit to this alternative dispute resolution mechanism must be genuinely voluntary.

However, the criterion is not without its critics. From a practical perspective, it opens the door for one of the parties –particularly the one that signed an arbitration clause and subsequently failed to comply with its obligations– Use the amparo proceeding as a delaying tactic to postpone or even avoid the arbitration to which you originally committed. Indirect amparo, with its deadlines, suspensions, and potential appeals, can significantly prolong the time before the underlying dispute is resolved. This is paradoxical considering that one of the main advantages of arbitration over ordinary courts is precisely its speed.

Furthermore, there is a risk that this criterion could weaken the legal certainty that arbitration clauses are intended to provide. Parties who negotiate and sign a contract with an arbitration clause do so with the legitimate expectation that, in the event of a dispute, it will be resolved through arbitration. If one of them can subsequently appeal to state courts and challenge the arbitration agreement through an injunction, the predictability that this mechanism seeks to guarantee is undermined. In the international commercial arena, where certainty regarding the forum for dispute resolution is crucial, this type of questioning could generate distrust of Mexico as an arbitral venue.

For companies and individuals who enter into contracts with arbitration clauses, this ruling serves as a reminder that such stipulations can be challenged if there are defects in consent, if the clause is ambiguous, or if circumstances have changed in a way that renders arbitration unfair. While this precedent is not yet binding, it opens a path to immediately challenge a court decision ordering such arbitration, without having to wait until the end of the proceedings to appeal.

Arbitration remains a valuable tool for resolving commercial disputes, particularly in international contexts or in sectors where the technical expertise of arbitrators is invaluable. However, its legitimacy rests on the informed consent of the parties. This new judicial criterion strengthens precisely that principle. No one should be forced into arbitration without valid consent, and anyone who believes they are being improperly subjected to arbitration now has an expedited avenue to assert their objection.with all the negative procedural implications that this could have-.

Executive Summary:

• The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved the contradiction of criteria 158/2018, in which the scope of article 22-A, third paragraph, of the Federal Tax Code was analyzed in relation to the payment of interest when the return of amounts previously paid is requested due to a tax credit that was subsequently declared null.

• The Court specified that the payment of interest is only applicable when the judgment declaring the nullity of the tax credit expressly addresses the refund for payment of what is undue, since the refund of amounts paid and the payment of interest constitute different legal scenarios.

• The criterion delimits the effects of judgments regarding the nullity of tax credits and underlines the importance of taxpayers expressly requesting within the trial the return of the undue payment and the corresponding interest.

The matter originated from divergent criteria issued by the then First and Second Chambers of the High Court regarding whether the declaration of nullity of a previously paid tax credit generates, by itself, the right of the taxpayer to receive interest when requesting the return of the corresponding amounts.

One position held that the nullity of the tax credit automatically implied the right to the payment of interest, under the premise that the declaration of invalidity of the administrative act produces the full restitution of the legal effects derived from it, including the economic consequences of the undue payment.

In contrast, the opposing view held that the nullity of the tax credit is not sufficient to generate the payment of interest, insofar as the return of amounts paid and the recognition of the right to interest constitute distinct legal assumptions that require a specific ruling by the jurisdictional body.

In resolving the contradiction, the Full Court determined that the payment of interest is not applicable when the judgment declaring the nullity of a previously paid tax credit does not expressly address the taxpayer's right to a refund for undue payment.

According to the interpretation adopted, Article 22-A of the Federal Tax Code provides for the payment of interest only in those cases where there is an express jurisdictional pronouncement on the corresponding refund, since the updating of said assumption constitutes the starting point to determine the admissibility of the interest derived from the delay in the fulfillment of the refund.

In this regard, the Full Court specified that the existence of an undue payment and the obligation to cover interest correspond to different legal natures, so the declaration of nullity of the tax credit does not automatically generate the obligation of the tax authority to cover interest if the jurisdictional body did not expressly rule on the return of the amounts paid.

It was also emphasized that it is the responsibility of taxpayers to expressly request in the respective trial the return of the amounts unduly paid, so that the jurisdictional body can rule on said right and, if applicable, update the legal assumptions that allow the payment of interest.

The resolution has practical relevance in tax litigation, as it delimits the effects of judgments that declare the nullity of previously paid tax credits and emphasizes the need to properly formulate claims related to the return of undue payments within the jurisdictional process.

In this context, the Supreme Court's decision highlights that the declaration of nullity of the tax credit does not necessarily imply the full restitution of the amounts paid with the automatic recognition of interest, particularly when the judgment is limited to declaring the invalidity of the administrative act without expressly ruling on the refund for undue payment.

Consequently, the precedent suggests the advisability of carefully analyzing the claims made within the contentious administrative trial or the corresponding means of defense, in order to determine whether it is appropriate to expressly request the recognition of the right to the return of the undue payment and, where applicable, the accessories that may derive from said restitution.

Likewise, the criterion confirms that the appropriateness of interest payments will depend on the case's classification under the specific scenarios provided for in Article 22-A of the Federal Tax Code, which reinforces the importance of properly structuring the procedural strategy in those matters in which previously paid tax credits are disputed.

In today's dynamic business environment, commercial conflicts are virtually inevitable. Delays in contract fulfillment, disagreements between partners, disputes with suppliers, or customer complaints can quickly escalate into complex litigation that jeopardizes significant company resources.

One of the most common (and potentially most costly) perceptions is to assume that litigation begins only when a formal lawsuit is filed or arbitration proceedings are initiated. The reality is that many lawsuits are won or lost long before the case reaches a court. The way your company manages a conflict from its earliest stages can significantly influence both the final outcome of the case and the total costs involved in dealing with it.

This article explores how companies can strategically prepare for major litigation and why this early preparation represents not just a defensive measure, but a true competitive advantage.

A well-handled litigation process begins before the lawsuit.

When a significant conflict arises, many companies tend to address it solely as an immediate business problem, seeking operational or negotiation solutions without considering the future legal implications. While this approach has merit, it may prove insufficient when there is a real possibility that the dispute will escalate to litigation or arbitration.

An Early preparation makes all the difference between a strong legal position and a vulnerable one. Companies that invest in strategic management from the first signs of conflict not only improve their chances of success in litigation, but are also better positioned to reach favorable settlements before going to court.

Key actions to prepare strategically

When a conflict shows potential for escalation, there are concrete actions that can make a substantial difference in the outcome of the case. Among the most relevant are the following:

1. Preservation of information and documents: protecting your evidence

In most commercial litigation, documentary evidence is crucial. Emails, internal messages, contracts, purchase orders, operational reports, meeting minutes, and even instant messaging conversations can become key evidence for reconstructing the facts and supporting your company's position.

The loss, destruction, or alteration of this information (even unintentionally) can significantly weaken your case. Furthermore, in some contexts, the destruction of relevant evidence after a conflict has arisen can lead to additional legal consequences.

2. Chronological reconstruction of the events: understanding the narrative

Before initiating any legal proceedings, it is essential to clearly understand how the conflict arose. This involves chronologically reconstructing the relevant events, identifying the decisions made by both parties, and analyzing how these events might be interpreted by a judge or arbitration tribunal.

3. Early and objective risk assessment: making informed decisions

Not all business disputes necessarily have to end in litigation. An objective assessment of the case (including its strengths, weaknesses, and possible outcome scenarios) allows for more informed strategic decisions about how to proceed.

This assessment should consider:

• The strength of the legal foundations of their position
• The quality and availability of the evidence
• Applicable judicial or arbitral precedents
• The strengths and weaknesses of the counterparty
• The estimated cost-benefit of different courses of action

In some cases, this assessment will confirm the advisability of initiating legal action or vigorously defending a claim. In others, it may reveal that alternative solutions such as structured negotiation, mediation, or even operational adjustments represent more efficient and less risky alternatives.

4. Effective internal coordination: aligning the entire organization

Significant litigation is rarely the sole responsibility of the legal department. It often requires the active involvement of operational, financial, commercial, and even senior management departments.

The hidden costs of corporate litigation

When companies assess the cost of litigation, they typically consider only legal fees and direct procedural expenses (experts, arbitrators, court costs, etc.). However, the true costs of a business dispute are often significantly broader and, in many cases, less visible until they materialize. Some of these costs may include:

• Management team time
• Impact on trade relations
• Financial uncertainty
• Reputational risks

The advantage of an early dispute resolution strategy

Not all business conflicts necessarily have to end in protracted litigation. In fact, the most sophisticated companies recognize that litigation is just one tool among a broad arsenal of dispute resolution mechanisms, and not necessarily the first option.

Final reflection: litigation as a strategic decision

Business litigation is not merely a technical legal process; it also represents strategic decisions that can affect a company's operations, business relationships, financial stability, and even its reputation.

Organizations that adopt a preventive approach (preparing from the early stages of conflict, understanding the real and hidden costs of a dispute, and objectively evaluating their options) are usually in a better position to protect their interests more effectively, manage risks and make decisions, among other things.

In a context where trade disputes can escalate rapidly and where the costs of mismanagement can be very high, having strategic advice from the early stages of the conflict is not a luxury but a business necessity.

The question is not whether your company will face significant trade disputes, but how prepared it will be when they arise.

At our firm, we support companies in the strategic management of conflicts, from early assessment to representation in complex litigation. If your company is facing a significant dispute or wishes to implement preventative best practices, we are available to discuss how we can assist you.

Building a company's reputation is a process that involves years of effort: investment, building business relationships, developing customers, and establishing a market position. Much of this process is reflected in an intangible element: commercial reputation. However, this reputation can be affected by the actions of third parties through public statements, commercial disputes that escalate, or the dissemination of unsubstantiated negative information. Given these scenarios, a relevant question arises: Does Mexico have a legal mechanism to protect a company's reputation?

The answer is yes. Mexican law recognizes that companies can also suffer reputational damage with third parties and demand compensation. This protection is regulated through the concept of moral damages.

The Federal Civil Code establishes that moral damages exist when a person suffers harm to non-pecuniary assets, such as their honor, reputation, or the esteem in which they are held by others. When any of these assets is harmed by the commission of an unlawful act, the obligation arises to provide redress through monetary compensation.[1].

In practice, this legal definition raised doubts about whether the concept was intended solely for individuals, given its reference to harm to feelings, affections, or beliefs. For years, the debate centered on whether a corporation could invoke this action, as some interpretations held that a company could not suffer moral damages, lacking emotions or a private life.[2].

However, Mexican courts have ruled that moral damages suffered by legal entities essentially stem from harm to their reputation and social standing. Therefore, moral damages caused to companies are not related to emotional aspects, but rather to the perception that third parties have of the company in the market.

In this regard, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation established that legal entities are entitled to claim compensation for moral damages when their reputation is affected. In other words, although a company does not possess feelings, it has a commercial reputation in the market, and this constitutes a legally protected asset.[3].

In practice, certain actions by third parties can influence how the business community perceives a company and the trust it inspires in the market. When this perception is unduly distorted, the impact can extend beyond the economic sphere and affect the company's image and credibility.

However, unlike claims for moral damages against individuals, which allow for a greater presumption of harm to a non-pecuniary asset, the burden of proof is usually higher for companies. It is not enough to simply state that the company's reputation was affected; it is necessary to demonstrate with objective evidence that third parties changed their behavior toward the company as a result of the wrongful act. This entails compiling sufficient evidence to demonstrate the impact on the company's public perception.

In conclusion, commercial reputation is also a legally protected asset. Mexican law allows companies to take legal action when the conduct of a third party unduly affects their market standing and to seek appropriate redress.

However, this type of action requires a greater amount of evidence to prove the harm caused. Therefore, in situations that could affect the market's perception of the company, it is advisable to promptly document the facts, retain relevant communications, and analyze available legal options early on.

[1] "Article 1916Moral damages are understood as the harm suffered by a person in their feelings, affections, beliefs, decorum, honor, reputation, private life, physical appearance and constitution, or in the esteem in which others hold them. Moral damages will be presumed when a person's freedom or physical or psychological integrity is unlawfully violated or impaired.

When an unlawful act or omission causes moral damage, the responsible party shall have the obligation to repair it by means of monetary compensation, regardless of whether material damage has been caused, in both contractual and extra-contractual liability. The same obligation to repair moral damage shall apply to anyone who incurs strict liability pursuant to Article 1913, as well as to the State and its public servants, pursuant to Articles 1927 and 1928, all of this Code…”

[2] In this regard, see the thesis issued by the Collegiate Circuit Courts, whose heading reads: “MORAL DAMAGES. LEGAL ENTITIES CANNOT SUFFER HARM TO THE VALUES CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 1916 OF THE CIVIL CODE FOR THE FEDERAL DISTRICT, AS THEY ARE INTRINSIC TO HUMAN BEINGS.".

[3] In this regard, see the jurisprudence issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, whose heading reads: “MORAL DAMAGES. LEGAL ENTITIES ARE LEGITIMIZED TO DEMAND REPARATION IF THE CONSIDERATION THAT OTHERS HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THEM IS AFFECTED (ARTICLE 1916 OF THE CIVIL CODE FOR THE FEDERAL DISTRICT)".

In business practice, commercial relationships are commonly built on trust, agility, and the need to close deals quickly. Emails, messages, calls, and good-faith agreements are usually sufficient as long as the relationship runs smoothly. The problem arises when, for whatever reason, that relationship breaks down and a legal dispute emerges between the parties. At that point, the discussion shifts from what they agreed upon to something much more concrete: what can be proven and with what documents.

Experience shows that many lawsuits don't stem from poor negotiation, but rather from inadequate documentation of agreements and a lack of preparation for litigation. Therefore, instead of viewing litigation as a distant prospect, it is increasingly important for companies to adopt a genuine culture of legal prevention.

Properly documenting a business relationship doesn't imply rigidity or distrust. It implies clarity. Having well-drafted contracts, up-to-date addendums, documented emails and relevant communications, and duly formalized agreements provides an objective starting point in the event of a dispute. In practice, many conflicts become unnecessarily complicated because the essential terms of a business relationship were never clearly defined in writing or because they were modified in daily operations without leaving a documented record. Therefore, what was a reasonable operational adjustment for one party can easily become a breach of contract for the other.

This need for order and clarity becomes even more critical when the company is sued. From that moment on, time begins to work against it, and there are specific legal deadlines for responding to the lawsuit, presenting evidence, and defining a defense strategy. In oral proceedings –increasingly common in civil and commercial mattersThese deadlines are usually shorter, and the procedural stages move more quickly, requiring swift and well-coordinated responses. When information is unavailable, documents are incomplete, or agreements are unclear, the defense becomes more costly, reactive, and, in many cases, less effective.

Something similar occurs with the safeguarding of documents and communications. In legal or arbitration proceedings, emails, letters, messages, and internal reports are often key pieces of evidence for reconstructing the history of a business relationship. However, it is common to find companies that lack clear policies for preserving relevant information, that delete communications due to internal storage practices, or that simply have not identified the key documents for each business relationship. Having basic processes in place to identify, preserve, and locate relevant information can make a substantial difference when defending a legal position, especially when procedural timeframes are limited.

Another often underestimated aspect is the validity and scope of the powers of legal representatives of a commercial company in Mexico. In daily operations, it is often assumed that whoever signs contracts or appears before authorities has the necessary powers, but in a dispute, this assumption rarely goes unnoticed. It is common for the opposing party to carefully review whether the powers of attorney are up-to-date, whether the powers are sufficient, and whether they reflect the company's operational reality. Outdated or poorly structured powers of attorney can lead to challenges regarding the validity of contracts, procedural nullities, or unnecessary delays that directly affect the case strategy.

This last point also becomes relevant when a company has to appear in court. Often, legal entities in Mexico do not have legal representatives, or their representatives have limited powers. Therefore, when it is necessary to act quickly because a deadline is approaching and they must present a legal defense before a court, or simply need to initiate some course of action as soon as possible to protect their rights, they act with extreme urgency to obtain sufficient power of attorney for these purposes, a process that can sometimes take several days.

Preparing for potential litigation doesn't mean assuming it will happen, but rather mitigating risks. Documenting agreements, safeguarding information, and keeping the company's legal structure up-to-date allows you to face any dispute from a position of control, not reaction. In an increasingly complex environment, with sophisticated business relationships and ever more agile legal processes, legal prevention becomes yet another strategic business tool.

Ultimately, having well-organized information, clear agreements, and a thoroughly reviewed legal structure not only facilitates a successful defense in court but also allows for better decision-making from the moment a conflict arises. Legal prevention doesn't eliminate the inherent risks of any business relationship, but it does place companies in a much stronger position to manage them. When conflict arises and deadlines are approaching, the difference between reacting and being prepared is often crucial.