Go to main content
Santamarina Steta Innovation and Regulation in Artificial Intelligence

The European Union redefines the balance between innovation and regulation in artificial intelligence

The agreement reached recently between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to simplify certain provisions of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act) represents one of the most significant regulatory adjustments since this legal framework came into force in August 2024. Beyond being a mere administrative simplification, the initiative reflects a strategic shift in how Europe seeks to position itself in the face of growing global technological competition, particularly from the United States and China. In this sense, the agreement demonstrates an evolution in European discourse: from a predominantly precautionary regulatory approach toward a more pragmatic model focused on technological competitiveness.

That changes?What stays the same?
- Compliance deadlines:
all with High-risk systems from December 2027 (previously August 2026); and for
AI-powered physical products: from August 2028.
- Reduction of administrative burdens and reinforcement de sandboxes regulatory.
- New ban: generation of non-consensual intimate content using AI.
- Greater harmonization with other European regulations.
- Mandatory AI training for staff: compliance from August 2026.
- Current prohibitionssubliminal manipulation, social scoring, and emotion recognition.
- Fines: up to 35 million euros or 7% of annual turnover (depending on the type of infringement).
- Protection of fundamental rights as the central focus.

WHAT CHANGES WITH THIS AGREEMENT?

A. Compliance deadlines.

The implementation schedule was modified for AI systems considered high risk (those used in critical infrastructure, education, human resources or justice).

Previous dateUpdated date
August 2026December 2027

Obligations applicable to sensitive sectors such as biometrics, critical infrastructure, education, employment, migration and border control will begin to be implemented from December 2027, while systems integrated into physical products, such as toys or elevators, will be subject to the new rules until August 2028.

From a regulatory perspective, the agreement confirms an increasingly visible trend in the European Union: the need to reconcile technological oversight with economic viability. The AI ​​Act was originally conceived as a robust risk mitigation tool, but its implementation raised concerns about potential adverse effects on innovation and compliance costs, particularly for startups and medium-sized enterprises. In response, the new agreement expands certain regulatory benefits previously reserved for small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as strengthening mechanisms such as thesandboxes regulatory” (controlled spaces for experimentation where companies can develop and test AI systems with direct supervision, under flexible compliance schemes) for testing in real-world conditions.

B. Prohibition of generating explicit content without consent.

Regulatory simplification and extended deadlines do not imply a complete relaxation of regulations. In fact, the agreement seeks to introduce an explicit prohibition on AI systems capable of generating sexually explicit and intimate content without consent. The specific inclusion of this prohibition is particularly significant for two reasons. First, because it formally acknowledges the exponential growth of generative technologies used to produce non-consensual images. Second, because it reflects the growing concern regarding the impact of these tools on privacy and human dignity, especially for women and minors.

This point also reveals a distinctive feature of the European model of digital governance: risk-based regulation remains deeply linked to the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The AI ​​Act does not operate in isolation, but rather in close coordination with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), establishing a complementary regulatory framework where the obligations of transparency, data minimization, and risk assessment reinforce each other. The European Union continues to position the protection of individuals as a structural pillar of its digital regulatory architecture.

C. Regulatory harmonization in Europe.

The agreement also aims to clarify the interaction between the AI ​​Act and other European sectoral regulations, such as the Machinery Regulation. This regulatory harmonization seeks to avoid regulatory duplication and reduce legal uncertainty for manufacturers and developers, which could lead to more efficient compliance processes and a reduction in administrative burdens for businesses.

WHAT STAYS THE SAME?

The AI ​​Act is not being shelved. The regulation still requires critical obligations that remain in effect and whose non-compliance can result in fines of up to €35 million or 7% of annual turnover (depending on the type of infringement), including:

  1. Mandatory staff training in the field of AI, by August 2026.
  2. Prohibited systemsSubliminal manipulation, social scoring, and emotion recognition using AI systems remain prohibited under the established timeframes.

The underlying message of agreements like this is clear: Europe seeks to prevent its own regulatory ecosystem from becoming a competitive disadvantage compared to other jurisdictions, without dismantling safeguards aimed at protecting fundamental rights.

It is important to monitor these types of regulatory updates, given that the European Union has consolidated its position as a global leader in digital governance. Its regulatory frameworks tend to be replicated worldwide, so adjustments to the AI ​​Act will not only impact companies with operations in Europe, but could also set the standard for future regulatory reforms in Latin America, including Mexico.

References: European Commission, EU agrees to simplify AI rules to boost innovation and ban 'nudification' apps to protect citizens, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, 7 May 2026, available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/eu-agrees-simplify-ai-rules-boost-innovation-and-ban-nudification-apps-protect-citizens (Last accessed: May 13, 2026).

Santamarina Steta call for generation projects

Second Call for Electric Power Generation Permits: A New Window of Opportunity for Project Developers in Mexico

Executive Summary:

On May 11, 2026, the Ministry of Energy (“SENER“) published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (“DOF") the "Second Call for Priority Attention to Applications for Electric Power Generation Permits and Interconnection to the National Electric System, Aligned with Binding Planning" (the “Second Call for Applications”). Its publication is based on the favorable results of the first call in October 2025, through which the National Energy Commission (“CNE“) granted 18 permits for electricity generation.

Key Aspects:

  • To whom? The Second Call is aimed at all people interested in developing new electricity generation projects with a capacity equal to or greater than 0.7 MW, that intend to interconnect to the National Electric System (“SEN“) and align with binding planning. 
  • Excluded projects. The following projects are excluded from the scope of the Second Call for Proposals: (i) distributed generation; (ii) self-consumption in any form; (iii) cogeneration; (iv) Mixed Development Schemes; (v) projects that do not require a permit under the Electricity Sector Law (“LSE“), and (vi) projects associated with previously granted and valid permits. 
  • Platform. All procedures are handled through the Single Window for Strategic Projects in the Energy Sector ( "VUPE“), available in https://ventanillaunica.energia.gob.mxThe VUPE is the main channel for registration, tracking and notifications throughout the process. 

Key Points: Technical Requirements and Conditions of Participation

Projects must meet the following technical and alignment criteria to be eligible: 

  • Renewable technology: The projects must correspond to renewable energy sources.
  • Battery Electrical Energy Storage System (“SAEE”): The SAEE sizing is required to be at least 30% of the power plant's capacity, having a minimum duration of three hours, and that it fulfills the technical and operational functions established in Annex 14.4 of the Second Call.
  • Start of Commercial Operation: The start date of commercial operations must fall within the period covered between 2027 and the first half of 2030.
  • Technical, social and environmental viability: Applicants must have documentary evidence of the feasibility procedures carried out before SENER, CENACE and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (“SEMARNAT"). 

Likewise, the permit titles issued under the Second Call for Proposals must contain and comply with, among others, the following deadlines and obligations: 

  • 8 months from the notification of the permit to accredit the project's financing scheme.
  • 6 months from the notification of the permit to obtain the final authorization regarding the Social Impact Statement of the Energy Sector and the authorization regarding environmental impact.
  • Submit the financial guarantee to CENACE prior to signing the interconnection contract, corresponding to the estimated amount of the accepted interconnection and reinforcement works.

Process Calendar

The process for the Second Call for Proposals is carried out according to the following schedule, whose dates correspond to the year 2026 and the days are counted as working days unless expressly indicated:

StageDate(s)Required action from applicant
Publication of the Second Call for ApplicationsMay 11thNone
Registration of expression of interest and request for interconnection studies (VUPE)13 al 22 de mayoComplete the CENACE Expression of Interest and Interconnection Studies Request Form in the VUPE
CENACE prevention and applicant support25 al 28 de mayoCorrect omissions required by CENACE
Determination of payments for interconnection studies (CENACE)May 29 to June 1Submit any additional information required by CENACE
Payment for studies before CENACE2 al 8 de junioSubmit proof of payment through the VUPE
Submission of application for generation permit to the CNE (OPE)9 from June to 8 from JulySubmit application to the Electronic Filing Office of the CNE
Review of requirements and notification of warnings by the CNE9 to 13 JulyReview CNE notifications through the OPE
CNE prevention measures14 to 17 JulySubmit the required information and documentation to the OPE
Notification of costs for Reinforcement and Interconnection Works (CENACE)July 20thCheck the notification in the VUPE
Express acceptance of Interconnection and Reinforcement Works21 to 28 JulySubmit the Works Acceptance Form to the VUPE
Re-evaluation of Reinforcement and Interconnection Works (if applicable)29 from July to 4 from AugustNone
Acceptance of redefined Works (if applicable)5 to August 6Submit the updated Works Acceptance Form to the VUPE
Technical evaluation by the Technical Analysis Group and the Technical Committee of the CNE7 to August 14None
Publication of resultsAugust 17th, XNUMXReview the publication on the VUPE and the CNE portal
Notification of approved permitsAugust 18th, XNUMXReview notification through the OPE
Withdrawal of previous applications (if applicable)19 to August 24Submit withdrawal to the CNE's OPE
Presentation of financial guaranteesPrior to signing the contractSubmit a guarantee to CENACE through the VUPE
Subscription of the interconnection contractIn accordance with regulationsSubmit technical, financial and corporate documentation
Start of Commercial OperationAccording to permit titleTake steps to initiate business operations

Reference Links: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5787117&fecha=11/05/2026#gsc.tab=0

Contact: En Santamarina + Steta We have a specialized team that can accompany you at every stage of the process: from the preparation and presentation of your regulatory file to the management of permits before the CNE, the CENACE and the SEMARNAT, including compliance with the environmental, social and financial obligations required by the Second Call.

Santamarina and Steta arbitration protection

Protection of arbitration against precautionary measures: a judicial criterion that reinforces the continuity of the arbitral process

Executive Summary

A Collegiate Court of the First Circuit ruled that judicial precautionary measures that halt arbitration proceedings can be suspended through an Amparo proceeding. This ruling strengthens the constitutional protection of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism and limits the abusive use of precautionary measures to obstruct validly agreed-upon arbitration processes.

The problemPrecautionary measures that halt arbitrations agreed between the parties

Imagine the following scenario: two companies agree to submit their disputes to arbitration. However, when a conflict arises, one of them goes to a civil court and obtains an injunction ordering the arbitration proceedings to be halted, preventing the issuance of the award, or restricting activities related to the arbitration. Can the other party do anything to protect the continuity of the process they both agreed upon? According to a recent judicial ruling, the answer is yes.

What did the Court determine?

The Tenth Collegiate Court for Civil Matters of the First Circuit issued thesis I.10o.C.2 K (12a.) in which it resolved that suspension is appropriate in the Amparo Proceeding against judicial precautionary measures that prevent the continuation of an arbitration or the issuance of the award. The Court's central reasoning rests on three fundamental pillars.

First, the Court reiterated the principle of minimal judicial intervention in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. According to this principle, the State's courts must refrain from interfering in the conduct of arbitration proceedings, except in cases expressly provided for by law.

Second, the Court reasoned that halting arbitration through precautionary measures distorts the arbitral mechanism. In other words, when a judge orders the suspension of arbitral proceedings, they are not “preserving the subject matter of the dispute.”which is the general purpose of a precautionary measure-.

Third, and as a consequence of the foregoing, the Court concluded that these measures violate public order and the right to effective judicial protection. This is because arbitration enjoys constitutional recognition as a mechanism for accessing justice, protected by Article 17 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.

Why is this relevant for businesses?

This criterion is a positive sign for those who include arbitration clauses in their contracts. Although it is an isolated thesis –not mandatory for all courts– It is significant that the courts are beginning to issue guiding criteria that interpret arbitration as a true alternative dispute resolution mechanism that cannot be easily undermined by judicial precautionary measures.

In practice, we have observed that precautionary measures aimed at halting arbitrations are often used as a strategy whose sole purpose is to obstruct an arbitration process validly agreed upon by both parties. This criterion represents a check on such practices.

We must acknowledge that judicial protection of arbitration in Mexico is a path that has been built over years through various judicial criteria. However, to date, respect for arbitration agreements continues to be questioned by some courts that distort the scope and effects of such agreements.

From our perspective, these types of resolutions strengthen arbitration in Mexico and provide greater certainty to companies when deciding between arbitration or judicial courts as a mechanism to resolve disputes in their contracts.

Although it is an isolated and merely guiding criterion, we consider it a positive and relevant development for the arbitration field in Mexico.

If your company uses arbitration clauses in its contracts –or is considering doing soIt is essential to have a strategy in place to protect the effectiveness of these agreements against potential legal challenges. Our dispute resolution team can advise you on drafting robust clauses and defending against any arbitration proceedings.

Santamarina and Steta judicial reform Mexico

The consequences of the Judicial Reform in Mexico: analysis and implications of a new judicial reform initiative

The constitutional reform concerning the Judiciary, published on September 15, 2024, constituted a genuine paradigm shift by introducing a system of popular election for judges. However, the haste with which the new model was implemented revealed several regulatory and operational inconsistencies, as well as numerous areas for improvement that prevented the full achievement of the originally intended objectives.

In particular, the mass selection of judges strained the mechanisms for reviewing and evaluating candidates, making it difficult to conduct a thorough and rigorous assessment of their suitability. The scale of the process and the tight deadlines under which it was carried out limited the institutional capacity to effectively verify compliance with the standards required for the exercise of judicial functions.

In this context, on April 21, 2026, a proposed constitutional reform was published in the Parliamentary Gazette of the Chamber of Deputies. This reform proposes modifications to various provisions related to the organization, operation, and selection process for judges. The central purpose of this initiative is to correct the deficiencies identified in the implementation of the current model and to strengthen its institutional elements. This article addresses the main proposed modifications and the potential implications of this initiative.

a) Single Evaluation Committee

One of the most significant changes involves replacing the current system, which is based on three Evaluation Committees –one for each branch of government—by a Single Evaluation Committee composed of nine people. This body would centralize the receipt and analysis of applicants' files, as well as the verification of compliance with constitutional and legal requirements, with the objective of identifying the best-qualified candidates for judicial positions. The measure seeks to standardize evaluation criteria and reduce the inconsistency in the assessment of candidates.

b) Assessment requirements

Regarding eligibility requirements, the initiative proposes a substantial change. While the current model introduced elements of a formal and, to some extent, subjective nature –such as specific academic averages, letters of reference, or motivational essaysThe new proposal incorporates, as an essential constitutional requirement, the accreditation of a current competency certification issued by the National School of Judicial Training. This adjustment aims to establish an objective and standardized parameter for evaluating the technical skills of applicants, such as legal reasoning, normative interpretation, and the application of human rights criteria.

Additionally, for ministers and judges, the requirement for professional experience in the practice of law is strengthened, giving greater weight to career paths within the judiciary or in the legal field in general. This change represents a shift from the current model, by once again prioritizing practical experience as the central element for access to judicial positions.

c) Leading role of the National Electoral Institute

Another relevant aspect is the reconfiguration of the role of the authorities involved in the judicial electoral process. The 2024 reform granted the Senate an initial role in issuing the call for applications and receiving nominations. The new initiative proposes excluding the Senate from this stage, transferring the power to directly issue the call for applications to the National Electoral Institute (INE). The Single Evaluation Committee would then be responsible for receiving and reviewing the candidates' files, forwarding only the highest-scoring applicants to the INE. This aims to simplify the procedure and provide greater institutional coherence to the process.

d) Integration of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation

Regarding the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the initiative proposes the possibility of it functioning not only in plenary session, but also through “Sections” –a figure that, in fact, resumes the logic of the previous Chambers-, with the aim of handling the workload more efficiently and allowing for greater specialization in resolving issues.

e) Impediments to aspiring to a jurisdictional position

Likewise, the list of impediments to aspiring to jurisdictional positions is expanded, incorporating various local public servants –as heads of state secretariats, local deputations, councils and municipal authorities—, as well as individuals with recent ties to political parties, including membership or holding leadership or representative positions. This measure aims to reinforce the perception of impartiality and judicial independence by distancing candidates from those with immediate political experience.

f) Harmonization of local judicial powers

Furthermore, the initiative contemplates the harmonization of the model at the local level, establishing that the Judicial Powers of the federal entities must adopt equivalent requirements, particularly in relation to the certification of competencies issued by the National School of Judicial Training, which points towards the construction of uniform standards throughout the country.

Finally, one particular adjustment involves decoupling the selection of judges from the regular federal electoral calendar. In this regard, it is proposed that judicial electoral processes have their own independent calendar, and that the next election, scheduled for 2027, be postponed to 2028, in order to allow sufficient time to properly design and implement the technical certification system.

In conclusion, the reform initiative seeks to address the main shortcomings identified in the current model, particularly those related to subjectivity in the evaluation of candidates and the inadequacy of technical mechanisms to guarantee the suitability of judges. From an impartial perspective, the incorporation of competency certification as a constitutional requirement is probably the most significant change, as it directly addresses the central criticism of the original system. However, its effectiveness will depend largely on the design, transparency, and rigor of the guidelines adopted by the National School of Judicial Training.

Similarly, strengthening professional experience requirements could help ensure that elected officials have a solid track record and practical knowledge of the judicial function. In this case, this would imply a revaluation of the judicial career and a possible reduction in the pool of applicants, favoring more specialized profiles. How this balance is achieved will be crucial in evaluating the model's success in the coming years.

Santamarina and Steta precautionary measures

A mistake can be irreversible: the Court redefines how to challenge precautionary measures

Executive Summary

Recently, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved the contradiction of criteria 272/2025, determining that the resolutions that grant or deny precautionary measures in Oral Commercial Trials They are not subject to appeal.The previous criterion –effective from February 2025Previously, an appeal could be filed against these decisions; however, now the only available means of challenging them is the Indirect Amparo Trial.

This change completely redefines the strategy for challenging decisions in Commercial Oral Proceedings. In practice, an error in choosing the right legal recourse can mean the definitive loss of the opportunity to contest a precautionary measure, with all the implications this has for protecting your company's interests.

The previous criterion (2025): precautionary measures were indeed appealable

In February 2025, the Regional Plenary in Administrative and Civil Matters of the Central-South Region issued the jurisprudence with the heading “PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES. DECISIONS GRANTING OR DENYING THEM IN ORAL COMMERCIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL” and with digital registration number 2029969.

The Regional Plenary's reasoning was technically sound and based on a clear procedural distinction: precautionary measures and oral commercial trials are processes of a different nature. While oral commercial trials are the procedure in which the substantive dispute is resolved, precautionary measures are mechanisms aimed at ensuring the practical effectiveness of a potential judgment.

Under this logic, the Regional Plenary concluded that the rule of non-appealability in Article 1390 Bis of the Commercial Code was only applicable to rulings issued within the Oral Commercial Trial itself, but could not be extended to precautionary measures processed concurrently with the trial. Since precautionary measures are governed by their own regulations in Chapter XI of Title One of Book Five of the Commercial Code, Articles 1183 and 1345, section IV, expressly provide for the admissibility of an Appeal against rulings issued regarding such measures.

In practice, this criterion meant that before resorting to the Amparo Trial, it was mandatory to exhaust the aforementioned means of appeal in order for the principle of finality to be considered exhausted.

The Court's new criterion

The Court's conclusion was emphatic: against the determinations issued in the precautionary measures derived from an Oral Commercial Trial, the Appeal referred to in articles 1183 and 1345, section IV, of the Commercial Code is not applicable, since the rule of non-appealability that governs in Oral Trials is applicable.

This means that, unlike the previous criterion, it is no longer necessary –nor appropriate– exhaust an ordinary means of defense prior to promoting the Amparo Trial.

Extension to preliminary rulings

A particularly relevant aspect is that the Court extended this criterion to precautionary measures issued during the pre-trial stage. It reasoned that, since these measures are related to or intended to initiate the oral commercial trial, it would be inconsistent to exclude the application of the rule of non-appealability at that stage, when it forms part of the same regulatory system.

Why does it matter? Practical consequences and risks

This is undoubtedly the most important part of this analysis. The change in criteria is not merely theoretical; it has direct and immediate implications for any company that is part of it –or may become part– of a Commercial Oral Trial in Mexico.

  1. Under the previous criterion, filing an Amparo lawsuit without first exhausting the appeal process would have resulted in its dismissal for violating the principle of finality. Now, the exact opposite occurs: if you file an appeal, it will be dismissed as inadmissible, and the time elapsed during its processing could cause the deadline for filing an indirect amparo lawsuit (15 days) to have irrevocably expired.
  2. The immediate appeal against precautionary measures was filed within six days. The Amparo proceeding must be initiated within 15 days according to the Amparo Law. Although the timeframe is numerically longer, preparing an Amparo petition is considerably more complex.compared to a statement of grievances– It requires greater preparation and specialization, which in practice compresses the margin of reaction.
  3. Article 1390 Ter 2 of the Commercial Code establishes an identical rule of non-appealability for oral commercial executive trials: “…cNo ordinary appeal will be allowed against the rulings issued in this trial.…Although the conflict of criteria expressly referred to oral commercial proceedings, the identical rule of non-appealability in both procedures makes it reasonable to anticipate that the criterion will be applied in the same way in Oral Commercial Executive Proceedings. This is especially relevant for companies that use this type of proceeding as a mechanism for recovering commercial debts.
  4. As mentioned, the Court extended the rule of non-appealability to precautionary measures requested before the filing of the lawsuit. This means that even at the pre-trial stage –when a company seeks to secure assets or resources of its debtor prior to the start of legal proceedings– the only way to challenge the resolution that grants or denies said measures will be the Indirect Amparo Trial.

There is a legitimate tension between the principle of procedural expediency and the right of access to justice and adequate defense. In fact, the Court itself recognized that imposing the obligation to exhaust appeals would constitute an obstacle to the right of access to justice, by incorporating a means of defense not provided for in the legislation applicable to oral proceedings. However, it can also be argued that eliminating the right to a second instance for precautionary measures –which can have severe and immediate financial consequences, such as the freezing of bank accounts– significantly reduces the procedural guarantees of the parties.

Conclusion

The criterion adopted by the Supreme Court not only redefines the means of appeal, but also requires a rethinking of the procedural strategy from the beginning of the litigation.

In this new scenario, decisions related to precautionary measures must be made with greater precision and speed: in the event of a resolution that grants or denies them, the appropriate route is the Indirect Amparo Trial, without going through the appeal process.

At the same time, the elimination of the double instance reinforces the importance of building solidly supported applications for precautionary measures from the outset, as opportunities for subsequent correction are significantly reduced.

Consequently, the correct identification of the means of defense and the technical quality in the preparation of these measures cease to be desirable aspects and become determining factors for the effective protection of the interests at stake.

Santa Marina Steta CICOPLAFEST

Decree amending the regulations on registration, import and export authorizations and export certificates for pesticides, plant nutrients and toxic or hazardous substances and materials April 2026

On April 24, 2026, the President of the United Mexican States published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (“DOF”) the “Decree reforming and adding various provisions to the Regulations on Registration, Import and Export Authorizations and Export Certificates for Pesticides, Plant Nutrients and Toxic or Hazardous Substances and Materials” (the “Decree”). This regulation, issued pursuant to the General Health Law, the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, and the Federal Plant Health Law, introduces significant modifications regarding sanitary registrations, data protection, and import and export requirements for agrochemical products. Its scope is of particular interest to companies in the agro-industrial and chemical sectors, and especially to those developing bioenergy or biofuel projects that involve the use, production, or marketing of pesticides and plant nutrients.

Fundamental aspects

  • New regulatory category: The definition of “new agricultural chemical product” is incorporated.
  • New documentary requirements: The requirements for obtaining registrations with COFEPRIS are updated, including a data protection mechanism for security and effectiveness.
  • Data exclusivity for 10 years: Article 13 Bis is introduced, which establishes a 10-year protection on information regarding the safety and efficacy of new agricultural chemicals.
  • Registration extension updated: The extension of the registrations will be valid for 10 years from the date of issuance.
  • Implementation timeframe: The Ministry of Health has 180 calendar days to issue the necessary regulatory and administrative adjustments.
  • Entry into force: The day after its publication in the DOF (April 25, 2026).

Key Points of the Decree

New definition: “New Agricultural Chemical Product”

The Decree adds section XXXII Bis to article 2 of the Regulations to define as “new agricultural chemical product” This category includes pesticides or plant nutrients containing an active ingredient that has not been used in any product previously registered under the Regulation. This category is the cornerstone of the new data protection mechanisms detailed below.

Update of Requirements for Obtaining Registrations

Article 10 of the Regulations is being amended to clarify and expand the documentation that interested parties must submit to COFEPRIS. Among the most important aspects of the new text are the following:

  • Express consent of the data subject: When the applicant intends to use, in whole or in part, the safety and efficacy information of a new agricultural chemical product already registered, he must present the express consent of the holder of said information, provided that no more than 10 years have elapsed since the date of issue of the original registration.
  • Patent accreditation: If the product has a valid patent in Mexico, the applicant must present the document issued by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property that proves its ownership or, if applicable, the certificate of the exploitation license registered with the same Institute.
  • Public databases: COFEPRIS will publish and update on its website the databases of granted registrations, as well as pending registration applications, at least every 30 calendar days from the start of its publication.

The documentation must be submitted classified into five sections: (i) administrative and identification information; (ii) identity, composition and analytical methods; (iii) toxicological information and label draft; (iv) ecotoxicological and environmental fate information; and (v) information on physical properties, maximum residue limits and biological effectiveness.

New Article 13 Bis: Data Protection, Security and Effectiveness

This is undoubtedly the most relevant provision of the Decree. The new Article 13 Bis It establishes that information concerning the safety and efficacy of a new agricultural chemical product—including physicochemical, toxicological, ecotoxicological and environmental fate data—shall enjoy protection for a period of 10 years counted from the date on which the first registration was granted in national territory.

During this period, the competent authority may not allow third parties, without the express consent of the holder, to obtain a registration to market the same or a similar product, whether based on this information or on the previously granted sanitary registration. This protection applies even when the original application was based on a marketing authorization granted abroad.

Registration Extension

Article 23 Bis 4 is amended to establish that the extension of registrations will have a validity of 10 years counted from its issuance, and which may be reviewed at any time by COFEPRIS, in accordance with the provisions of the General Health Law.

Transitional provisions and deadlines

The Decree establishes the following transitional provisions that all companies in the sector must take into account:

ProvisionResponsible and adaptableTerm
Entry into force of the Decree April 25, 2026 (the day after publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation)
Conclusion of matters in process under the previous rulesInterested parties / COFEPRISUntil its conclusion in accordance with the provisions in force at the time of its presentation
Regulatory and administrative adjustments for implementationMinistry of Health180 calendar days from the entry into force of the Decree
Expenditures under the Decree charged to the authorized budgetSpending officersWithout additional resources; charged to the existing regularizable budget.

It is important to note that, until the Ministry of Health issues the aforementioned regulatory and administrative adjustments, the previous provisions will continue to apply in all matters that do not contradict this Decree, and the competent authority must directly apply the provisions of the latter in case of conflict.

Does your company operate in the agrochemical or agroindustrial sector?

En Santamarina + Steta We help you to:

  • Evaluate the impact of the Decree on your current and pending health registrations.
  • Design strategies for the protection of data security and effectiveness of your new products.
  • Manage registration, import and export procedures with COFEPRIS.
  • Advise you on complying with the new obligations during the transition period.

References: https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5785958&fecha=24/04/2026

Santamarina Steta health supplies reform 2026

Amendment to the Regulations for Health Supplies

On April 24th 2026, was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (“DOF”) on “Decree reforming and adding various provisions to the Regulations for Health Supplies” (he "Decree“), which introduces relevant modifications in matters of health registration, data protection, linkage of patents and biotechnological medicines.

The changes are of particular relevance to pharmaceutical companies, developers of innovative medicines, manufacturers of generics and biosimilars, as well as patent holders in the health supplies sector.

Fundamental aspects

New definition of New Molecule.  The Decree updates the definition of “New Molecule” to refer to any drug, biopharmaceutical or substance with therapeutic, preventive or rehabilitative activity, alone or in combination, contained in a medicine or biological product, that does not have prior health registration in national territory.

Evaluation of new molecules.  For medications containing new molecules, the Ministry of Health, through the Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risks (“COFEPRIS”), will request the technical opinion of Committee on New Molecules as part of the sanitary registration evaluation process. This opinion will not be required when the application already has prior authorization issued by a foreign regulatory authority recognized by the Ministry, unless a risk associated with the drug is identified. The Committee will be composed of heads of COFEPRIS departments and external experts with scientific, technical, academic, and regulatory experience. The resolution must be issued within a maximum term of 180 days from the submission of the application.

Supplementary patent certificates

One of the most relevant new features of the Decree is the introduction of the supplementary certificates, a mechanism by which the holder of a health registration may request compensation when there are delays unreasonable attributable to the Secretariat in the processing of the registration, provided that said delay affects the exploitation of the exclusivity of a patent indicated from the filing of the application.

The supplementary certificate will be issued by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (“IMPI”) and will adjust the validity of one of the drug's patents, without being able to exceed five yearsCompensation may only be requested for one patent per delay, and the request must be submitted within the within 60 business days. counted from the date of notification of the health registration.

The compensation request is unfounded when, among other assumptions: (i) the patent is part of a drug that has already obtained a prior registration; (ii) the patent grant number has not been indicated in the original application; or (iii) the drug has been marketed before obtaining the sanitary registration.

Data protection and generic medicines

Data protection for new molecules.  Technical and scientific information on the safety, quality, and efficacy of medicines containing a novel molecule will be subject to protection for a period of five years counted from the date of notification of the sanitary registration. During that period, no third party may use said information to obtain a sanitary registration without the express written consent of the holder.

Generic medicines and interchangeability.  For generic drugs, instead of submitting the safety and efficacy information of the innovator drug, the following must be submitted: interchangeability test reportHowever, when such a report uses—in whole or in part—information concerning the safety and efficacy of a New Molecule, it will be necessary to submit the express written consent of the holder of that information, if no more than five years have passed since the notification of the innovator's health registration.

Biotechnology drugs

The Decree strengthens the regulatory framework applicable to innovative and biosimilar biotechnological medicines. innovative biotechnologicalCOFEPRIS will request the opinion of the Committee on New Molecules and of Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Biotechnology Products, unless authorization is obtained from a foreign authority recognized by the Secretariat and no risk is identified.

For biosimilarsThe registration process requires the submission of biocomparability and immunogenicity studies, adverse event reports, and standard technical documentation. COFEPRIS will request the opinion of the New Molecules Committee, except when the aforementioned foreign authorization recognition criterion applies.

Extensions of health registration

The Decree establishes that the first extension The sanitary registration of medicines, medical equipment, prostheses, orthoses, diagnostic agents and other medical supplies will be granted for a period of ten yearssimplifying the requirements that must be submitted for processing. For the second extension and subsequent extensionsthe application must be submitted no later than 150 calendar days before that the registration expires.

Transitory dispositions

ProvisionDetail
Entry into forceThe Decree came into effect on April 25th 2026 (the day after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation).
Pending mattersProcedures initiated before the entry into force of the Decree will be processed in accordance with the provisions in force at the time of their submission.
Regulatory adjustmentsThe Ministry of Health will have 180 calendar days to make the necessary regulatory and administrative adjustments. Meanwhile, the previous provisions will continue to apply insofar as they do not contradict the Decree.
BudgetThe expenditures arising from the Decree will be made from the authorized budget, without authorization of additional resources.

Executive Summary

The Decree published on April 24, 2026 introduces reforms of great relevance to the pharmaceutical and medical device industry in Mexico. The main new features are: (i) the creation of supplementary patent certificates to compensate for delays in the processing of health registration; (ii) the protection of data of new molecules for five years; (iii) the strengthening of the biotechnology assessment process; (iv) the simplification of requirements for registration extensions; and (v) the new requirement of consent for the use of data of new molecules in generic applications.

Reference Links: https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5785957&fecha=24/04/2026

For more information on the impact of these reforms on the pharmaceutical and healthcare supplies sector, please contact:

Santamarina Steta media networks

The Circular on Payment Method Networks is amended to temporarily reduce interchange fees for card payments at gas stations

On April 27, 2026, the Resolution adding Provision 10 Bis to the General Provisions applicable to payment networks (hereinafter, the “Resolution”) was published in the afternoon edition of the Official Gazette of the Federation. This Resolution was jointly issued by the National Banking and Securities Commission (“CNBV”) and the Bank of Mexico (“Banxico”). The Resolution falls within the framework of a tripartite agreement between the Federal Government, the Mexican Banking Association (“ABM”), and the Association of Voucher Companies (“ASEVAL”), coordinated by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (“SHCP”), with the objective of reducing the fees applicable to payments made with credit cards, debit cards, and vouchers at fuel service stations.

I. Background

In response to the surge in international energy prices stemming from the conflict in the Middle East, the Federal Government has implemented various measures to mitigate the impact on fuel prices in the domestic market. In this context, the President of the Republic announced on April 27, 2026, the signing of an agreement with the Mexican Banking Association (ABM) and the Mexican Association of Fuel Debt Securities (ASEVAL) to reduce commissions on gasoline and diesel payments made with cards and vouchers, from May 1 to October 31, 2026, to benefit Mexican families.

In this regard, the agreement is structured around three simultaneous pillars: (i) a discount on the fees charged for the use of credit and debit cards issued by banks, through the elimination of the interchange fee, which represents approximately 80% of the total fee; (ii) a discount of $1.10 (one peso and ten cents) per transaction on the fees charged for the receipt of vouchers in the transport and logistics sector; and (iii) the enabling of the necessary regulatory framework by the CNBV and Banxico so that the measures operate from May 1, 2026 without additional procedures for users.

II. Content of the Resolution

The Resolution adds Provision 10 Bis to the General Provisions applicable to payment networks. Its purpose is to temporarily streamline the registration process for interchange fees for gas station businesses, in order to reduce operational burdens, expedite the adoption of digital payments, and ensure a timely and coordinated response, without compromising the applicable principles of security, transparency, and oversight.

The CNBV stated in its Resolution that the Federal Government has promoted the negotiation and negotiation of agreements with representatives of the gasoline station sector, with the aim of protecting consumers' finances. It also highlighted that participants in the card payment network market have expressed interest in promoting the adoption of digital payments in key sectors of the economy, as well as in improving the conditions for accepting these payment methods.

It is worth noting that the Board of Governors of Banxico, within its purview, decided to exempt these modifications from the public consultation process stipulated in the applicable regulations. This was done to ensure that the intended effects of the Resolution are achieved in a timely manner and that users receive the greatest benefits in the shortest possible time.

The Resolution establishes that, when registering interchange fees for card payments in the commercial activity of gas stations, these will be valid for six months, starting from the date on which the applicants inform Banxico of their due implementation.

III. Validity and entry into force

The Resolution entered into force the day after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation and its validity will expire on October 31, 2026. Once that date has passed, Provision 10 Bis will be automatically repealed, so it is an expressly temporary measure.

The period of validity of the measures (from May 1 to October 31, 2026) coincides with the validity of the agreement signed between the Federal Government, the ABM, and ASEVAL. This means that both the regulatory framework and the voluntary agreement between the parties operate in an aligned and coordinated manner during the same period.

IV. Applicable regulatory framework

The Resolution is based on the powers granted to the Bank of Mexico by the Law for Transparency and Regulation of Financial Services (“LTOSF”) to regulate matters related to fees and interchange charges in payment services, as well as on the powers of the CNBV (National Banking and Securities Commission) regarding the supervision of the financial system. Under the mandate of its Organic Law and the LTOSF, Banxico regulates various aspects of the services provided by credit institutions, clearing houses, and participants in payment networks.

V. Practical implications for regulated entities

The Resolution has significant implications for various participants in the payments system. For credit institutions that issue cards, the temporary elimination of the interchange fee at gas stations implies a direct reduction in revenue from these transactions during the period of validity. However, the Mexican Banking Association (ABM) has expressed its support for the measure as part of a strategy to promote the digitization of payments in the fuel sector, which in the medium term could increase transaction volume and partially offset this reduction.

For acquirers and payment processors operating payment networks, the Resolution temporarily simplifies the interchange fee registration process, reducing the operational burdens associated with implementing the measure. Likewise, for fuel service stations, the elimination of the interchange fee translates into a significant reduction in the cost of accepting digital payments, which, according to the agreement reached, must be reflected in the final price of fuel for the consumer.

It is important to note that this measure is part of a broader effort by the Federal Government to promote the elimination of the use of cash in the national territory.

VI. Closing remarks

The Resolution represents an atypical exercise in financial regulation in Mexico, as it is a temporary, sector-specific regulatory modification expressly conditioned on a public policy objective (containing fuel prices), which was exempted from the ordinary public consultation process. While the measure seeks to generate immediate benefits for consumers and promote the adoption of digital payments, it will be important to monitor its effective implementation and the results it yields during its six-month period of validity.

It will also be relevant to observe whether, upon the expiration of Provision 10 Bis on October 31, 2026, the financial authorities choose to extend the measure, incorporate permanent modifications to the interchange fee system, or revert to the previous scheme. The President of the Republic has indicated that the government intends to make digital payments at gas stations mandatory starting in September 2026, suggesting that the digitalization of the fuel sector could lead to more far-reaching regulatory changes.

Finally, regulated entities, participants in payment networks, and companies in the fuel sector must take note of the Resolution and adjust their operating processes accordingly. The Resolution does not require any additional procedures for end users; however, participants in the payments ecosystem must inform Banxico of the proper implementation of the interchange fees registered in accordance with Provision 10 Bis.

Santamarina Steta Congress approves hump reduction

Congress approves reform to reduce working hours

On April 22, 2026, the Chamber of Deputies approved the opinion on the draft decree reforming, adding to, and repealing various provisions of the Federal Labor Law regarding the reduction of working hours. The decree had been previously approved by the Senate in a session held on April 8, 2026, and will now go to the Federal Executive Branch for its enactment, promulgation, and publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation, which is expected to occur before [date missing]. May 01th 2026.

Among the main modifications contained in the decree, the following stand out:

  • The ordinary working day will be 40 hours per week distributable by mutual agreement between employers and employees.
  • The ordinary daily working hours remain at 8 hours for the day shift, 7 for the night shift and 7 and a half hours for the mixed shift, and the working week maintains a distribution of 6 working days for 1 day of rest with full pay.
  • Gradual implementation, reducing the working day from January 1, 2027, until reaching 40 hours in 2030, and increasing the overtime limit also gradually:

Entry into forceWeekly working hours limitWeekly overtime limit (double hours)
May 01th 2026489
January 01, 2027469
January 01, 20284410
January 01, 20294211
January 01, 20304012

  • Overtime will not exceed 12 hours per week, distributed in up to 4 hours per day, over a maximum of 4 days. This overtime will be paid at 100% more than the regular salary (double hours), and if this limit is exceeded, only 4 additional hours may be worked (triple hours), which will be paid at 200% more than the salary corresponding to the hours of the regular workday.
  • The sum of ordinary and extraordinary working hours may not, under any circumstances, exceed 12 hours per day.
  • The reduction in working hours will not imply a decrease in wages, salaries or benefits for workers.
  • Effective January 01, 2027, employers will be required to electronically record the working hours of each employee, including start and end times, and provide this information to the authorities upon request. The content of the electronic record will constitute conclusive proof if it is demonstrated that it was agreed upon between the employee and the employer. The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare will issue general provisions that determine the scope of application and exceptions to this obligation, which will take effect on the same date.
  • A fine of 250 to 5,000 Units of Measurement and Update (UMA) is established for the employer who fails to comply with the obligation of electronic registration of working hours.

The period between the official publication and December 31, 2026 will be considered a transition period for workers and employers to adjust work processes to the terms of the decree.

This reform will require employers to redesign their workforce organization, including analyzing current shifts, planning future staff assignments, controlling overtime, and implementing electronic time and attendance systems. It will be necessary to adjust internal work regulations, employment contracts, and internal policies accordingly, and implement processes that maintain, and ideally improve, productivity.

Once the reform decree is published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, it will be important to follow up on the general provisions issued by the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare regarding electronic work schedule registration.

At S+S we are available to discuss the implications of this reform on your operation, scheduling, compliance and updating of internal policies. 

Santamarina and Steta Infrastructure Promotion Law

The Law for the Promotion of Investment in Strategic Infrastructure for Development with Well-being is issued

On April 9, 2026, the Decree issuing the Law for the Promotion of Investment in Strategic Infrastructure for Development with Well-being (hereinafter, the “Law”) was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation.

I. Objective.

The purpose of this Law is to regulate investment mechanisms to promote the development and execution of public infrastructure projects that contribute to national development through the participation of the public, private, and social sectors (the “Projects”). Likewise, the Law seeks to provide legal certainty, transparency, and security in these investment schemes, thereby strengthening national sovereignty.

The Projects seek to trigger economic growth, reduce social inequality gaps, promote access to basic public services, foster regional development and comply with the National Development Plan, focusing on the sectors of communications, transport, water, environment, energy, health, education, urban development, tourism, industry, technology and any other in accordance with the National Development Plan.

II. Council.

To fulfill the objectives of the Law, it provides for the creation of a Strategic Planning Council (the “Council”) that will govern the planning and oversight of investments in the Projects, as well as the creation of various committees such as the Risk Analysis Committee and the Technical Committee. The Council will be an advisory body, without its own legal personality or assets, that will approve public sector participation in any Project before it is implemented.

The Committee will be chaired by the Federal Executive and will be composed of the heads of the Legal Counsel of the Federal Executive, the National Bank of Public Works and Services, the National Credit Society, Development Banking Institution, as well as the heads of the Ministries of: (i) Finance and Public Credit (“SHCP”); (ii) Environment and Natural Resources; (iii) National Defense; (iv) Navy; (v) Energy; (vi) Economy; (vii) Infrastructure, Communications and Transportation; (viii) Anti-Corruption and Good Governance; and (ix) Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development.

The Council will have permanent guests, who will have a voice but no vote in its sessions. These permanent guests will be the heads of the National Water Commission, the National Fund for Tourism Development, the Federal Roads and Bridges Agency, the Digital Transformation and Telecommunications Agency, the Integrated Public Transportation and Trains Agency, Nacional Financiera, a National Credit Institution, and the heads of the Ministries of Welfare, Tourism, and Science, Humanities, Technology and Innovation.

The Council has the power to define investment priorities in Projects and approve a corresponding national investment strategy, define the participation structures of the public, private and social sectors, analyze Projects and determine their financial, economic and social viability, and may issue recommendations in this regard, request reports on Projects and the investments made in them, form the necessary technical committees for each Project and revoke the viability and appropriateness of Projects.

III. Structures.

The Law establishes various legal structures for carrying out infrastructure projects. These structures include:

  • Special Purpose Vehicles (“SPVs”): corporations, public or private trusts, or any other entity that allows for coordination among the public, private, and social sectors and whose mere creation does not imply obligations for the Federal Government. SPVs are intended exclusively to invest in or finance Projects.
  • Mixed Participation Schemes (“MPS”): mechanisms through which the Government (through Entities, Agencies, trusts, State-owned enterprises, majority state-owned enterprises, Vice-President Enterprises, or any other entity) participates directly or indirectly with the private and/or social sector to finance, design, develop, operate, maintain, and exploit Projects, sharing risks, costs, investments, benefits, or returns. MPS are further classified into the following types:
  1. Long-term contracting: the private and/or social sectors participate in financing, building, operating and maintaining the Projects for a certain period, in exchange for consideration according to predetermined quality or performance standards.
    1. Mixed investment: the public, private and/or social sectors participate in financing, building, operating and maintaining the Projects, sharing costs, risks, investments and benefits according to the corresponding participation interest.
    1. Schemes for specific sectors; and
    1. Any other EPM determined in the regulations of the Law or in the guidelines issued by the SHCP.

Public sector participation in EPMs may be through cash or in-kind contributions, rights of use, exploitation or exploitation, concessions, authorizations or permits, movable or immovable property, intangible rights and any other modality permitted by applicable legislation.

IV. Procedure.

Projects must follow a specific procedure to be established and implemented. First, the project proposal must be submitted to the Council for consideration. To this end, they must be aligned with the National Development Plan and include studies and valuations demonstrating their financial, technical, and legal viability.

corresponding economic information, as well as other information included in the regulations of the Law and the guidelines issued by the SHCP.

Following analysis and deliberation by the Council, which may request additional information on the Project proposal, the Council may decide whether to approve the Project proposal and which investment vehicle will be implemented for said Project. To this end, after market research, a tender will be issued that must be transparent, objective, and impartial.

Upon the awarding of a contract for a Project, a strategic investment contract will be formalized, under the terms and conditions specified in the bidding documents, with legal entities or trusts whose purpose includes carrying out the Project in question (the “Contracts”). The Contracts must have a duration of more than four years and less than forty, including any extensions. In addition to a Contract, a long-term public infrastructure Project may be implemented through concessions, assignments, or permits granted by the Federal Government to a Public-Private Partnership (PPP).

V. Benefits.

For the implementation of the Projects, the Council may allocate the following support to an approved Project, in order to guarantee the participation of the public, private and social sectors:

  • That the Projects have access to VPEs that allow them to optimize their financial structure, obtain the necessary liquidity, achieve the best financial or economic conditions, or allow the contribution of resources;
  • That the Projects have the granting of guarantees by the Federal Government, the Development Bank or multilateral;
  • That the Federal Government grant tax incentives;
  • That collaboration agreements be entered into with Federal Entities and Municipalities so that they too can participate in the Projects; and
  • That the Contracts include deferred payments, provided that they are not greater than the rate established for tax credit extensions.

VI. Controversies.

The Law establishes that in the event of disputes arising from VPE or the Contracts, priority shall be given to negotiation by mutual agreement and in good faith, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in accordance with applicable law, and, if so agreed in the corresponding Contract or in a separate agreement, to arbitration. The applicable law for arbitration shall be Mexican federal law, the language shall be Spanish, and the award shall be binding and enforceable against both parties.

For disputes of a technical or economic nature, the parties may submit such dispute to a committee composed of three experts in the subject matter in question, one appointed by each party and the third by agreement of the latter.

The revocation of authorization for a Project and acts of authority may not be subject to arbitration, and the resolution of disputes related to the legal validity of an administrative act may only be settled before federal courts.

VII. Transitional provisions.

The Law enters into force the day after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation. From that date, the Federal Executive and the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) have 180 (one hundred and eighty) calendar days to promulgate the regulations of the Law and the corresponding guidelines, respectively.

The Council must be installed within a period of no more than 120 (one hundred and twenty) calendar days from the date the Law came into force and, in its first session, must approve the rules of operation for its functioning.

For those investment projects initiated prior to the entry into force of the Law during the fiscal year 2026, these may be presented to the Council, which will determine their access to resources from VPE and the support and benefits mentioned in the Law, or they may migrate to EPM, subject to prior agreement of the parties and approval of the Council.

Santamarina Steta tax credits

Reform to the Federal Tax Code to eliminate the strict order of the means to guarantee tax credits

Introduction

At the end of 2025, several reforms were made to the Federal Tax Code, seeking to provide the Tax Administration Service with greater mechanisms and tools to combat the simulation of operations and tax evasion, as well as to have greater control over compliance with taxpayers' obligations; the above, aligned with the public policy of increasing collection and limiting taxpayers' use of legal means to defer the payment of taxes.

Among these reforms, which came into effect on January 1, 2026, modifications to the rules of the appeal for reconsideration were included, and a strict and mandatory priority was established regarding the means to guarantee tax credits.

Before the aforementioned reforms, the Federal Tax Code suspended the obligation to provide a guarantee simply upon filing an appeal for reconsideration, and this obligation had to be fulfilled once the appeal was resolved. With the reforms, this possibility was eliminated, and now the tax credit must be guaranteed even if an appeal for reconsideration is filed.

Furthermore, prior to 2026, Article 141 of the Tax Code itself established a list of available means to guarantee tax credits, and the taxpayer chose the one that best suited their situation, including surety bonds and deposit certificates. As a result of the reform and the strict order established for these means of guaranteeing tax credits, the taxpayer must now use deposit certificates as the first option.

This modification has significant economic effects, since the cost of the surety bond amounts to approximately 6% of the tax credit amount, while to obtain the deposit slip, the taxpayer must disburse an amount equivalent to the total amount of the tax credit.

In summary, as of January 1, 2026, taxpayers must present a deposit slip to guarantee the tax credit, even if they file an appeal against it.

Initiative to reform article 141 of the Federal Tax Code

On March 19, 2026, President Sheinbaum presented a bill to the Chamber of Deputies to amend Article 141 of the Federal Tax Code. The proposed amendment would allow taxpayers to choose the guarantee method that best suits their circumstances; in other words, it would eliminate the strict priority requirement that tax credits be secured with a bank deposit certificate.

Specifically, the initiative proposes “Leveraging the experience of the Mexican tax system and restoring the versatility of the catalog of guarantee options, freely chosen by the taxpayer, is crucial. Indeed, the diverse economic profiles of taxpayers indicate that individuals should be allowed to guarantee their debt in the way that is most accessible to them given their particular circumstances.Therefore, the initiative intends that the catalog of means to guaranteeremain flexible and without a mandatory order".

Furthermore, the initiative proposes to include a transitional article that would allow those who guaranteed a tax credit by means of a deposit slip in compliance with the strict order in force from January 1, 2026, to request the substitution of the guarantee from the tax authority within 30 days after the reform comes into force.

This initiative was discussed and approved by the Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies on March 25, 2026, and will therefore be sent to the Senate for further discussion and approval.

It is important to note that the reform does not change the requirement that taxpayers must guarantee the tax credit even when they file an appeal; however, allowing them to choose the means of guaranteeing, as was the case before January 1, 2026, is extremely beneficial in economic terms.

Finally, considering that the initiatives presented by President Sheinbaum to Congress usually do not receive much opposition, it is most likely that the proposed reform will be approved, now by the Senate.

Santamarina Steta TV Azteca

The start of a bankruptcy proceeding: recent lessons from the TV Azteca case

Executive Summary:

  • The application for bankruptcy does not imply its declaration or the automatic suspension of creditor actions, but it does mark the beginning of a procedure that can redefine its legal and economic position.
  • The eventual declaration of bankruptcy activates a structured legal framework, including the suspension of individual executions, the intervention of a conciliator, and a formal process for the recognition of claims.
  • The initial stages of the procedure are critical: early and strategic action can significantly influence the protection of rights and the recovery of debts.

As is public knowledge, TV Azteca, SAB de CV recently filed for bankruptcy protection in a Federal Court in Mexico.

Beyond the specific case, this type of situation is particularly relevant for creditors and others stakeholders, insofar as it allows us to illustrate what such a request for bankruptcy entails, at what stage of the procedure a company is in this case and what are the practical considerations that must be taken into account from an early stage.

What does it mean to file for bankruptcy protection?

The application for bankruptcy proceedings constitutes the beginning of a universal judicial procedure whose objective is to determine whether a company is in a state of generalized non-compliance with its payment obligations, derived from insolvency, illiquidity or both.

It is important to note that simply filing the application does not imply a declaration of bankruptcy, nor does it automatically lead to a suspension of payments or a halt to creditor actions. However, the judge may order precautionary measures at this stage to preserve the company's operations and protect its assets.

In this initial phase, the judge analyzes the merits of the request and, if appropriate, orders the verification of the company's financial situation, which gives rise to the so-called visit stage.

At what stage of the procedure is the company?

After the application is submitted, the procedure typically follows these stages:

  • Admission of the application by the competent judge and, in certain cases, the issuance of precautionary measures;
  • Appointment of an inspector by the Federal Institute of Commercial Bankruptcy Specialists (IFECOM), who reviews the company's financial and accounting situation;
  • Visit stage, in which the company's financial and operational situation is analyzed;
  • Issuance of the inspector's report; and
  • Judicial resolution, by which the declaration of bankruptcy is declared or denied.

During the visit stage, the specialist evaluates, among other aspects, the existence of widespread payment defaults according to the parameters established in the Commercial Bankruptcy Law.

Approximate times for the visit stage

While each case depends on its particularities, in practice:

  • The visit stage usually takes place over a period of 2 to 4 months, depending, among other factors, on the size, complexity and cooperation of the company;
  • Once the report has been submitted, the judge has a relatively short period of time to issue the corresponding resolution;

What does it mean for a company to be declared bankrupt?

The declaration of bankruptcy by a federal judge marks the beginning of the conciliation stage, during which the company has a legal framework to negotiate with its creditors the restructuring of its obligations.

As a general rule, from that declaration onwards, individual enforcement actions regarding previous obligations are suspended and the payment of prior liabilities is restricted, allowing only those necessary for ordinary operation, which orders the negotiation within the same procedure.

At this stage, a conciliator is appointed, whose main functions include supervising the administration of the company, facilitating negotiations with creditors, and seeking to reach a bankruptcy agreement that allows for its restructuring and continued operation.

Likewise, creditors must request recognition of their claims within the procedure, in order to be included in the list of creditors and, subsequently, be considered in the judgment recognizing claims and be able to participate in the negotiation of the insolvency agreement.

The goal is to preserve the operation of the business and, where appropriate, restore its financial viability, not to bankrupt or liquidate the company.

Approximate times for the conciliation stage

The conciliation stage lasts up to 185 calendar days, with the possibility of two extensions of 90 days each, reaching a maximum duration of up to 365 calendar days, subject to compliance with certain legal requirements.

Is there immediate protection for the company?

The legislation provides for the possibility that the judge may issue precautionary measures from early stages, in order to preserve the operation of the company and avoid effects that compromise the viability of the procedure.

These precautionary measures may include, among others, restrictions on executions against the company or limitations on the payment of certain obligations.

However, these measures are not automatic and their scope will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and what the judicial authority determines.

Does the company's procedure affect the corporate group?

The application for bankruptcy proceedings generally refers to a specific entity, and does not necessarily imply that other companies in the same corporate group are in the same situation.

However, depending on the group's structure, there may be indirect effects that need to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, particularly in relation to guarantees, operational flows, or contractual relationships between different entities.

What should creditors and others do? stakeholders at this initial stage?

The initial stages of the procedure are particularly relevant for defining the creditors' strategy. Among other considerations, the following is recommended:

  • Actively monitor the procedure, including the admission of the application, the appointment of the visitor and the eventual declaration of bankruptcy;
  • Review the contractual documentation and verify the obligated legal entity to identify if it is the company that requested its bankruptcy proceedings, as well as the existence and scope of guarantees;
  • Evaluate the legal and economic position, including the amount and nature of the debt;
  • Analyze possible effects of precautionary measures on the contractual relationship;
  • Determine whether the contractual relationship can be considered essential or whether there are obligations in progress;
  • Prepare for credit recognition; and
  • Evaluate strategic alternatives, including coordination with other creditors.

Early action can be crucial in protecting the position of creditors and others stakeholders.

The filing for bankruptcy proceedings is only the beginning of a process that can significantly redefine the position of creditors and others stakeholders.

A correct understanding of these initial stages, as well as the adoption of an informed and timely strategy, is often a key factor for the protection and eventual recovery of loans.

In scenarios with international elements, these considerations can be complemented by the analysis of possible actions and effects in other jurisdictions, which will be the subject of further comment.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, an early assessment of the scenario can be key to defining the most appropriate strategy.