Go to main content
The upcoming election of judges will increase the backlog of cases at the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation - Santamarina and Steta

The upcoming election of judges will increase the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

  • The recent approval of General Agreement 3/2025 (the "Agreement") by the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation establishes the basis for the conclusion of its current functions and regulates the session schedule that will govern until August 2025.
  • This process is occurring in parallel with the implementation of the constitutional reform published on September 15, 2024 ("Constitutional Reform of the Judiciary"), which structurally transformed the Court, reducing the number of justices from 11 to 9, eliminating its Chambers, and establishing the Plenary as the sole decision-making body.
  • In this regard, we believe that while the Agreement is a significant step in the institutional transition process stemming from the reform of the Judiciary, as it seeks to ensure the continuity, transparency, and orderly conclusion of the High Court's work, the combination of various factors provided for in the Constitutional Reform of the Judiciary will result in a significant increase in the backlog of cases, which represents a significant challenge for guaranteeing the right to prompt and expeditious justice.

In this regard, the Agreement establishes a progressive agenda for the completion of the functions of the current Supreme Court. In operational terms, during the months of April to July 2025, no new cases will be referred to the current justices, except for those considered urgent or priority, and a reduction in the frequency of Plenary and Chamber sessions will be maintained. It should be remembered that once a case reaches the Supreme Court, a lottery is held to determine which justice will be assigned (which shift) to carry out the initial study of the case and prepare the draft judgment, which, in due course, must be analyzed and voted on by the other justices for the corresponding judgment to be issued.

In this regard, and while this design seeks to address the growing backlog and pending procedures, it is inevitable to anticipate that this procedural pause will increase the backlog of matters that will need to be addressed by the new composition of the Plenary starting September 1, 2025, since the new ministers will have to resolve not only the new cases that are presented, but also all those that reach the court in these four months.

This backlog takes on an even more complex dimension when considering the new applicable constitutional framework. In particular, the Constitutional Reform to the Judiciary introduced a substantial change to Article 17 of the Constitution, establishing that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation must resolve tax matters within a maximum period of six months, starting from the date the matter is brought before the competent authority.

This new parameter poses important operational and legal implications, as it requires a clear definition of when the calculation of this period begins. In this regard, reasonable doubts arise regarding its interpretation:

  • Should the deadline be counted from the moment the matter is formally submitted to the Court, even if it has not been referred?
  • Or does the deadline begin once the new member of the Plenary takes office and actually hears the case?

Both interpretations entail significant risks. In the first scenario, various cases currently pending or on hold could exceed the constitutional deadline of six months, raising questions about the procedural validity of their resolution. In the second, the backlog of pending cases, coupled with the elimination of the Chambers and the reduction from eleven to nine members of the Plenary, could compromise the quality of the rulings by further concentrating the workload on each minister.

From a literal interpretation of the constitutional text, it could be argued that the deadline has already begun to run for those cases that have formally entered the Court, even if they have not been referred, which would place us before the imminent realization of the failure to comply with the established deadline. If the opposite interpretation is upheld—that is, that the calculation begins once the new Plenary Session materially hears the cases—an express resolution from the competent body clarifying this point would be essential. Otherwise, the justices would be exposed to potential liability proceedings before the new Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal, in accordance with the current legal framework.

In addition to the above, the complex integration process that the new judges, elected through mechanisms unprecedented in our constitutional system, will face must be considered. Beyond the procedural aspects, this process will entail a substantial change in profiles, in the way the Constitution is interpreted, and, in general, in the judicial culture that will govern from this new integration. Added to this is the challenge of joining a judicial body without Chambers, which will deliberate and rule solely in plenary session, which will profoundly alter the internal working dynamics, the pace of decision-making, and the deliberation times.

From our perspective, the institutional challenge is not limited to formal compliance with constitutional deadlines. The real challenge will be ensuring that the rulings issued by the new Supreme Court maintain the quality, argumentative depth, and technical soundness that characterize the country's highest judicial authority. The Court not only interprets the Constitution but also charts the course of the national legal system. Therefore, any impact on the quality of its rulings would have a direct impact on legal certainty, the unity of the constitutional order, and the effective protection of human rights.

In this context, we believe that the Supreme Court will face an institutional breaking point. The reduction in its membership, the elimination of the Chambers, the incorporation of new positions, and the accumulated procedural backlog represent factors that, if not addressed with strategy, transparency, and technical rigor, could affect the legitimacy and effectiveness of the High Court. Balancing the demand for promptness with the need to issue technically impeccable judgments will be a complex but essential task. Achieving this balance will not only be key to preserving public confidence in the Judiciary, but also to ensuring, in practice and not just in rhetoric, that access to justice in Mexico is truly expeditious, complete, and impartial, as required by our Constitution.

Santamarina Steta Podcast: The Changing Landscape of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

The changing landscape of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

Over the past few months, companies' Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts have faced challenges from high-profile political figures, particularly the Trump administration. In this episode of Legal Evolution, we are joined by Juan Carlos Machorro, a partner at our firm, who speaks with María Eugenia Martínez, talent director, and Francisco Robledo, founder of ADIL Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace, about the current corporate environment and the challenges posed by growing resistance to DEI initiatives.

shutterstock 2421717409

The implementation of an Integrity Policy will favor companies in public procurement procedures

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Updates.

The new Government Procurement, Leasing and Services Law (“Procurement, Leasing and Services Law”), and reforms to the Public Works and Related Services Law (“Public Works and Related Services Law”) include the express obligation of the competent government agencies and entities in public procurement procedures to consider and favor, those participants that have an Integrity Policy implemented within their organizations. Such provisions seek to guarantee that public procurement procedures are carried out with social responsibility.

  • In the Statement of Legislative Intent of the new Procurement, Leasing and Services Law, and of the reform of the Public Works and Related Services Law, the interpretative scope attributed to the constitutional principle of guaranteeing the best conditions for the State in public procurement procedures, was reassessed, seeking to guarantee in such assimilation, a social aspect.
  • Last April 16th, the new Procurement, Leasing and Services Law, and a series of reforms to the Public Works and Related Services Law, were published in the Federal Official Gazette, calling for government agencies and entities involved in public procurement procedures to verify whether the companies participating in such procedures had implemented an Integrity Policy, as a means to assure that such workings are carried out with social responsibility.  
  • Both laws include provisions calling for government agencies and entities, to score with bonus points, in the realm of public procurement calls, the proposals presented by companies to have implemented an Integrity Policy aligned to the Guidelines to be issued by the Ministry of Anticorruption and Good Government, within the following 12 months.
  • The latter adds to the long list of benefits within the reach of companies resulting from the adequate implementation of an Integrity Policy.
Airbus

Santamarina & Steta advises Airbus Financial Services Limited on the operating leases of two A330-300 aircraft (P2F) for Aerotransportes Mas de Carga, SA de CV (Mas).

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Deal Announcements.

Airbus Airbus Financial Services Limited (Airbus Financial Services Limited) is a global leader in the design, manufacture, and sale of aircraft and the leading global aircraft manufacturer. As part of the development and growth of the airline industry in Mexico, Airbus Financial Services Limited has leased two converted passenger-to-cargo (P330F) A330-2 aircraft for Aerotransportes Mas de Carga, SA de CV (Mas), the main cargo airline in Mexico with a presence in America, Europe and Asia.

Santamarina and Steta, SC, through the partner Juan Carlos Machorro and the associate Andres Remis, acted as legal counsel to Airbus in this transaction. Santamarina y Steta, SC, is proud to participate in significant transactions in the Mexican airline industry.

Santamarina Steta podcast: Financing strategies for infrastructure projects

Financing strategies for infrastructure projects

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this episode of Legal Evolution, we are joined by Juan Carlos Machorro, partner at our firm, and Pablo Ortiz Monasterio, specialist in our financial practice, to talk about road, port, airport infrastructure projects and other large-scale investments, the different ways in which they can be financed and their possible impact on the rest of the country's economic sectors.

Santamarina Steta podcast: the new secondary laws on energy

The new secondary laws on energy

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this episode, Juan Carlos Machorro, Norma Álvarez, and Regina Vargas join us to discuss the content of the new secondary laws and energy reforms enacted last March. Specifically, we address the importance of the energy transition as a guiding principle in these laws, how this component is integrated into the current federal administration's projects, and how the private sector has the opportunity to participate through the development of new investment projects.

Santamarina Steta podcast: Balance of power given the judicial reform

Balance of power given the Judicial Reform

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this episode, we are joined by Juan Carlos Machorro and Mariano Calderón, partners at our firm, to continue our discussion on the implications of the judicial reform and the balance between the three branches of government.

Web Page SIZE (2)

New Mexican Official Standard NOM-017-STPS-2024 on personal protective equipment in the workplace is published.

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Updates.

  • On March 28, 2025, the new Mexican Official Standard on Personal Protective Equipment - Selection, Use, and Handling in the Workplace was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation.
  • Its objective is to establish the minimum requirements for the selection, use, and handling of personal protective equipment provided to workers to protect them from risk factors, agents, or contaminants in the work environment, in order to prevent accidents and occupational diseases in workplaces where such equipment is required.
  • The new standard will enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation and will then replace the previous standard (NOM-017-STPS-2008).

On March 28, 2025, the new Mexican Official Standard NOM-017-STPS-2024 on personal protective equipment - Selection, use, and handling in the workplace was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation.

Among other obligations, employers must:

  1. Identify and analyze the risks to which workers are exposed for each position and area of ​​the workplace, to determine, provide and supervise the use of the appropriate personal protective equipment ("PPE"), taking into account the occupational risks to which workers are exposed, which may be physical, mechanical, chemical or biological risks.
  2. Provide PPE for visitors entering areas where its use is mandatory and for emergency response, according to established plans.
  3. Have procedures and provide training and instruction for the use, inspection, replacement, cleaning, limitations, maintenance, storage, and final disposal of PPE.
  4. Communicate to workers the occupational hazards to which they are exposed and ensure that workers in companies contracted to provide specialized services are aware of the risks, safety measures, and, where applicable, the PPE; the type of protection required; and how to use PPE when performing their activities. Supervise compliance with these measures and ensure that PPE is used correctly.
  5. Keep records of the inspection, replacement, cleaning, maintenance, storage, and final disposal of PPE that requires maintenance.

The new standard will enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation, that is, on September 28, 2025, and will then replace the previous standard (NOM-017-STPS-2008).

Click here to view the publication:

https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5753280&fecha=28/03/2025#gsc.tab=0

Santamarina Steta podcast MA in Mexico navigating economic uncertainty

M&A in Mexico: Navigating Economic Uncertainty

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in Podcast.

In this episode, we are joined by Juan Carlos Machorro, partner at our firm, and Redy Martínez, associate specializing in corporate law, to discuss the impact of economic uncertainty in the world and the possible impact on M&A transactions in Mexico, as well as the major tariff announcement scheduled for April 2nd. 

shutterstock 2075069911

The Challenges for the Mexican Automotive Industry in the Face of Potential Trump Tariffs: A Contractual-Commercial Perspective. How to Prepare for Potential Noncompliance?

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

The Trump Administration's threats to impose tariffs on vehicles and auto parts manufactured in Mexico –among other products and services– are still ongoing, so the Mexican automotive industry is on the cusp of a potential trade crisis. If any of these measures are implemented, companies in the sector (from automakers to Tier 1 suppliers) could face a considerable financial impact, but also a legal challenge in their contractual relationships. How could they prepare from a legal perspective to mitigate the effects of this scenario?

Breach of Contract as an imminent risk

It's no secret that automotive companies operate under commercial contracts with customers and suppliers that establish very specific prices, delivery times, and obligations. Specifically, fixed prices, available part numbers, delivery times, and penalties for delays are part of everyday life for both the manufacturing companies and the various suppliers that work around them. In the automotive industry in general, there is no room for distractions, noncompliance, or unforeseen events.

A tariff increase could drastically alter production and logistics costs, which could even render some contracts between companies in the sector unviable, for example, in relation to production costs or even transportation and shipping costs. All of this could lead to contractual breaches, either due to the impossibility of delivering on the agreed terms or due to the lack of profitability of existing contracts.

Prevention and Mitigation Strategies

To prepare for the potential imposition of tariffs, automotive companies can adopt several legal strategies:

  1. Review and renegotiation of current contracts: Incorporate force majeure clauses that allow for contractual adjustments in the event of significant tariff changes.
  2. Contractual protection in new agreements: Include price adjustment and automatic renegotiation mechanisms in the event of extraordinary events.
  3. Preparation of legal strategies regarding current contractsAnalyze the obligations, terms, and scope of current commercial agreements and/or contracts to anticipate potential noncompliance and begin preparing the respective legal strategies.

While potential tariffs pose a real threat to the Mexican automotive industry, adequate legal preparation can help mitigate their impact. The key lies in anticipation and contractual flexibility to adapt to an increasingly uncertain trade environment.

Specifically, regarding the legal strategies to be analyzed, developed, and implemented in response to Trump's tariffs, particularly in relation to existing commercial and contractual relationships, it is worth asking:

Can tariffs be considered an unforeseeable act that allows for the modification of trade agreements?

Theory of unforeseen events.

The theory of unforeseen events (rebus sic stantibus) is the exception to the principle pacta sunt servanda, which establishes the binding nature of contracts.

Therefore, the theory of unforeseen events can be defined as: “…that which allows the review of what was agreed by the contracting parties, to resolve or modify it when for extraordinary circumstances, unforeseeable y unrelated to the parties, the conditions of its execution are significantly altered, making the fulfillment of the obligation excessively onerous due to the imbalance between the considerations…” (Tapia, Javier. Theory of Unforeseen Events).

The civil codifications of some states in our country have incorporated provisions that reflect the theory of unforeseen events (rebus sic stantibus), which allows us to maintain that the change in circumstances due to unforeseeable events gives the right to renegotiate the terms of a contract. This issue can be observed in the local civil ordinances of Mexico City (article 1796 Bis), Aguascalientes (article 1733), Jalisco (article 1795), Guanajuato (article 1351), Coahuila (article 2147), Sinaloa (1735), Tamaulipas (article 1261) Veracruz (article 1792) and the State of Mexico (article 7.35).

However, the theory of unforeseen circumstances is not regulated in the Federal Civil Code and the Commercial Code, and the judicial opinions issued in this regard are largely in line with a conservative and legalistic position tending to reject the applicability of this theory in commercial matters.

Consequently, at first glance it seems that in federal civil and commercial matters it is not possible to allege a "change of circumstances" as a fact generating the power to renegotiate a contract due to excessive burden or imbalance in the contractual relationship, although the position of the Mexican Courts could change, especially in the framework of the election of Judges derived from the Judicial Reform of 2024.

Acts of God and force majeure

In the legal field, the concepts of unforeseeable circumstances and force majeure are essential for understanding situations in which a party cannot fulfill its contractual obligations due to unforeseeable and unavoidable external events. Generally, legal doctrine has defined these concepts as follows:

  • Fortuitous event: Refers to events of natural origin that cannot be avoided, such as earthquakes, hurricanes or floods.
  • Force majeure: It involves events caused by third parties or by the authority that make the fulfillment of a contract impossible, such as wars, embargoes or drastic changes in legislation.

Both of these circumstances can exempt the affected party from liability, provided it is proven that the event in question was unforeseeable and actually prevents the fulfillment of the obligation in question.

From a legal perspective, the question arises: Can this new tariff policy be considered a fortuitous event or force majeure in commercial contracts?

While the imposition of a tariff does not directly impede the performance of a contract, it can significantly alter its economic terms, making it excessively burdensome for one of the parties. In some contracts, a regulatory modification of this type could be interpreted within a force majeure clause, allowing for the renegotiation or suspension of certain obligations. In other cases, the theory of unforeseen circumstances, which has already been described earlier in this article, could be used.

The UNIDROIT Principles and Contract Renegotiation

The UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contracts can provide guidance in addressing these challenges. In particular, the principle of “hardship" establishes that when an unforeseen event fundamentally alters the contractual balance, the affected party may request renegotiation. Although these principles are not binding in themselves, they can be used as a reference in international commercial disputes.

For their part, the uses and customs of the merchants are concentrated in the lex mercatoria, and international practice and doctrine have confirmed that the UNIDROIT Principles are part of it. These principles regulate the general rules applicable to international commercial contracts, providing for the concept of "undue hardship" and its effects on contracts, particularly the right to: "…The disadvantaged party may request renegotiation of the contract... ".

In addition, the American Convention on Human Rights defines usury as any other form of exploitation of man by man, which must be prohibited by law.. This principle has been adopted by our highest courts and applied in their rulings, to the point of issuing jurisprudence that empowers judges to examine ex officio the interest agreed upon in civil and commercial contracts, in order to prudentially reduce it when the interest is considered excessive and abusive.

Considering the above, companies could attempt to renegotiate their contracts under the theory of unforeseen circumstances. To do so, it is extremely important to consider:

(a) The time limits within which the affected party has to notify and assert extraordinary, unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the parties (in our case, the entry into force of Trump's tariffs);

(B) Proper notification to the other party; and

(C) The specific terms agreed upon in each contract determine the application of said theory, as well as the scope it could have in modifying the obligations agreed upon in the contracts.

At Santamarina+Steta, we are already analyzing and working on strategies for our clients to implement. Therefore, we believe it is important that if you believe your business may be affected, you seek prompt and immediate advice.

Webpage SIZE

What is moral damages in Mexico and when can you claim them in court?

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

Surely many of us have heard the concept of "Moral Damage", according to which and in general terms, a person who suffers a certain type of affectation could claim from the person who caused said affectation, reparation of the damage and/or compensation. -generally of a pecuniary nature-; but what is it?

Article 1916 of the Federal Civil Code, moral damage is understood as: “…the impact a person suffers on their feelings, affections, beliefs, decorum, honor, reputation, private life, physical makeup and appearance, or on the way others regard them. Moral damage shall be presumed when the freedom or physical or psychological integrity of a person is unlawfully violated or impaired…”.

Thus, Mexican law establishes that anyone who causes moral damage is obligated to compensate it through monetary compensation, regardless of whether material damage was caused, both in contractual and extracontractual liability.

How is the amount of compensation determined?

The aforementioned regulatory provision establishes that the Judges must determine it, taking into account the following elements:

  • The rights violated
  • The degree of responsibility
  • The economic situation of the person responsible and that of the victim
  • Other circumstances of the case

The Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico has issued important precedents on moral damages and the right to fair compensation in Mexico. These criteria have been fundamental in ensuring adequate reparation for the damages caused.[1], in the case of actions for moral damage and its reparation in accordance with the human right to fair compensation.

According to national jurisprudence and the criteria of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, compensation seeks, to the extent possible, to eliminate the consequences of the wrongful act and restore the situation that would have existed if the harm had not been committed. If this is not feasible, fair compensation must be granted, without implying a gain for the victim, but rather adequate restitution.[2].

In general terms and in accordance with national legislation and jurisprudence, the quantification parameters have been established, as well as how they should be weighted to determine the amount of the respective compensation:

  1. Victim-related factors:
  • Emotional impact: Determined through psychological assessments.
  • Economic consequences: Expenses arising from the damage, such as medical treatment or therapy.
  • Factors related to the person responsible:
  • Degree of liability: The more serious the conduct, the greater the potential compensation.
  • Economic situation: It is taken into account to determine a fair and proportional amount.

In this regard, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has held that modern tort law must primarily address the nature and extent of the harm to the victims, not the perpetrators. The harm caused will determine the nature and amount of compensation. Reparations cannot entail enrichment or impoverishment for the victim or their successors, since the liability is not intended to be excessive.

Under this scenario, the elements that, according to the law and judicial criteria, must be proven for the admissibility of an action of this nature are: (i) the existence of an unlawful act; (ii) the generation of damage or affectation, in accordance with the provisions of article 1916 of the Federal Civil Code -and other regulatory provisions-; and, (iii) the existence of a causal link between the first and second elements.

In this order of ideas and the clearest cases where a right to claim compensation for moral damage can be created, they can derive from illegal acts that result in the death of people, but also -as an example- for behaviors such as:

  1. Defamation, slander and libel.
  2. Violation of the right to privacy.
  3. Breach of contracts or employment relationships.
  4. Discriminatory acts.
  5. Harassment and psychological violence.
  6. Unauthorized use of image or name.

[1] In this regard and for better reference, see the following note published on the Internet: https://arturozaldivar.com/sentencias/mayan-palace-danos-punitivos-dano-moral-indemnizacion/, relating to a fundamental case for the understanding of moral damages in Mexico, linked to a sentence decreed against a prestigious hotel chain, for the death of a person in one of its hotels.

[2] See the jurisprudence issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, whose heading reads: “Fundamental right to full reparation or fair compensation. Its concept and scope.”.

Web Page SIZE (1)

The corporate veil in Mexico: impact and legal criteria for its lifting

Written by Santamarina + Steta en . Published in S+S Litigation Newsletter.

In Mexico, commercial law establishes, as a general rule, that companies have legal personality and assets of their own, distinct from those of their partners. This is a fundamental principle of corporate law known as “separation of assets”.

In this way, legal security is granted to entrepreneurs, who do not have to compromise their own assets for the obligations their company acquires as an autonomous legal entity. In the Mexican legal system, this circumstance is known as corporate veil.

On the other hand, based on the principle of good faith and the right to freedom of association established as a human right in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, commercial legislation is flexible regarding the creation of companies, provided that the requirements established by law are met. However, certain national and international cases have arisen in which individuals, abusing this right, create companies to avoid the risk of compromising their own assets if they fail to fulfill their obligations, which constitutes fraud against the law to the detriment of third-party creditors.

An example of this was the case Prest v. Petrodel Resources Ltd 2013 in the United Kingdom, in which the UK Supreme Court ruled in favor of piercing the corporate veil of one of the parties' companies. In short, one of the parties formed several companies and, through them, acquired high-value real estate. However, these properties were not used to fulfill the companies' corporate purpose, but rather were used for the founder's personal benefit. Thus, when a divorce arose with his counterpart, the lifting of the corporate veil was requested to demonstrate that the creation of the companies was solely intended to conceal the assets under supposedly another's assets, belonging to a separate company. The UK Supreme Court found the request to be well-founded and proceeded to pierce the companies' corporate veil, separating the real estate from their assets and adding them to the divorce settlement.[1]

Returning to the framework of Mexican law, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) starts from the fundamental premise that the separation of assets between the partners that make up a company and the company itself, as an autonomous legal entity, effectively guarantees that the partners will not be liable for the company's debts with their personal assets, but rather with the company's assets. If the company is insolvent, the partners will only be liable up to the amount of their capital contribution.

However, under Mexican law, piercing a company's corporate veil is exceptionally permissible. Under a criterion similar to that of the cited case, the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) has determined that, in order to prevent the abusive exercise of a right (freedom of association) to evade compliance with legal obligations and duties, it is possible to pierce the corporate veil when it is proven that the company was created for the purpose of defrauding third-party creditors or simulating a legal act contrary to the principle of good faith provided for in Mexican law.

As mentioned, in Mexico this measure is exceptional and only applies in certain cases, since the general rule is the separation of assets, which guarantees legal security for business owners.

For a company's corporate veil to be pierced, certain objective and subjective elements must be proven. First, as an objective element, the existence of a debt and the breach of an obligation owed by the company must be conclusively demonstrated, using the relevant evidence. Second, as a subjective element, the judge must be provided with a factual context: a list of facts and rights that demonstrates that the company in question was created for the purpose of defrauding third-party creditors or simulating a legal act, violating the principle of good faith established in Mexican law.[2]

In conclusion, Mexican law is flexible regarding the formation of companies for lawful purposes, allowing any person or group of people to exercise their human right to freedom of association. However, when this right is abused to the detriment of a third party, with the aim of defrauding them and evading liability, Mexican law allows, under the specific circumstances described above, the piercing of the corporate veil to protect the community. All of this is always under the responsibility of the judge, who must adhere to the principles of consistency, reasonableness, and proportionality that should guide the decisions of Mexican judges.

Author: Ivan Castelan C.

[1] See the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, available at https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0004_judgment_5132540ebe.pdf.

[2] See the thesis under the heading “CORPORATE VEIL. AS A GENERAL RULE, IT CANNOT BE LIFTED AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE IN PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS” with registration number 2029943.