Go to main content
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.

Santamarina Steta procedural fraud

Can a concluded commercial lawsuit be annulled? What every company should know about procedural fraud

Executive Summary:

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) recently opened the door to validating the possibility of annulling concluded commercial lawsuits when procedural fraud or collusion is proven. This change in criteria could impact the certainty of final judgments involving commercial obligations. We analyze when this action is appropriate, what risks it poses for companies, and what preventive measures should be adopted.

Imagine that your company won a commercial lawsuit months ago and the judgment is now final.

Is there a legal action that seeks to annul a commercial judgment?

Until recently, the answer was categorical: no, not in commercial matters. However, on November 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) voted by a majority of five to four in favor of admitting the possibility of annulling concluded commercial judgments when there is evidence that the judgment was obtained through procedural fraud, collusion, or based on false evidence.

The central argument of the majority is that res judicata, that is to say, the principle that gives certainty to judicial decisionsIt cannot serve as a shield to validate fraudulent acts. For companies, this presents both risks and opportunities that should be understood.

What is the action for annulment of a concluded trial?

This is an independent civil proceeding that challenges the legality of the previous process, not its substantive issues. Its purpose is to overturn final judgments when it is demonstrated, exceptionally, that the ruling was based on maneuvers contrary to procedural good faith.

This figure originated in the Code of Civil Procedures of the Federal District, now Mexico City, in articles 737 A to 737 L, replicated in the National Code of Civil and Family Procedures in articles 52 to 61.

The action for annulment is appropriate when:

  • The ruling was based on evidence declared or recognized as false, and
  • There was collusion or other fraudulent maneuver between the parties to the trial whose annulment is sought.

Key deadlines:

To file such an action, the deadline is one year from the date the judgment became final, or a maximum of three months from the date the petitioner knew or should have known the grounds for it. After these deadlines have passed, the action will simply not be admissible.

The shift in commercial law: What could change and why is it relevant?

Current jurisprudence (P./J. 14/2025) (11a.) establishes that it is not possible to annul a concluded commercial trial, since the Commercial Code does not provide for this figure and it is not viable to apply it in a supplementary manner.

The logic revolves around the principle that supplementary application of the law does not allow the introduction of a legal concept that the law does not expressly contemplate. Therefore, it was argued that since the Commercial Code does not provide for an action to annul a concluded judgment and does not establish any exception to the principle of res judicata, it was not viable to resort to civil procedural law to bring such an action.

However, in November 2025, the newly constituted Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) changed its stance when analyzing Amparo Directo en Revisión 6585/2023. The case involved a woman who requested the annulment of a commercial executive judgment, alleging that the defendants simulated legal acts to feign insolvency and evade child support obligations. By a vote of five to four, the Court determined that it is indeed possible to reopen concluded commercial judgments for review when fraud has been proven.

From the above, it is important to understand the complexity of this action, since the filing of the action for annulment of a concluded trial does not suspend the execution of the final resolution that motivates it, provided that the winner grants a guarantee of at least the amount equivalent to thirty percent of what was sentenced; or, the amount that the Judge prudently sets in those processes in which what was sentenced has not dealt with patrimonial issues or are of indeterminate amount.

What does this mean for companies?

If the current jurisprudential criterion were replaced, it would then allow for the processing of the Action for Nullity of a Concluded Judgment in commercial trials, undoubtedly setting a trend that companies should not ignore.

In other words, if a company obtained a favorable judgment in a commercial lawsuit, the losing party could attempt to overturn that judgment under the provisions of Article 737-A. Conversely, if the company was harmed by a lawsuit it suspects was fraudulent, and the current legal precedent were superseded, it could file an action to reverse that judgment.

To date, the current jurisprudence P./J. 14/2025 (11a.) is binding, which in simple terms maintains that, “If the procedural law does not expressly provide for the action of nullity of a concluded trial, then that action is not admissible, even if it is alleged that the trial was fraudulent.".

Therefore, it is clear that despite the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) in November 2025, which suggests a different interpretation, this ruling is not currently binding. Rather, it serves as an advisory criterion, not a mandatory or binding one, because it did not obtain the necessary votes to become a binding precedent. In practice, it currently functions as an argument to be considered, but not as a rule that judges are obligated to apply.

If in the future the SCJN were to change the binding criterion (that is, surpass P./J. 14/2025), then the door could be opened to annul certain commercial trials already concluded when there are clear signs that the sentence was obtained with fraud, hidden agreements between parties (collusion) or false evidence.

Practical recommendations:

If a company faces or has faced commercial litigation, it should consider the following: review whether any judgments concluded against it could have been based on the grounds established in Article 737-A of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Federal District, now Mexico City. In that case, document and safeguard all evidence of its legal proceedings, especially in complex transactions or disputes with multiple parties; and assess whether judgments in its favor could be subject to an attempt to overturn them by the affected party.

Finally, we invite our readers to stay tuned to our newsletter. We reiterate that, to date, jurisprudence P./J. 14/2025 (11a.) remains the binding reference. We will promptly share any relevant updates regarding cases in which the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) supersedes the current precedent.

The legal landscape surrounding the annulment of a concluded trial is undergoing a profound transformation. Anticipating these changes can make the difference between protecting your interests and being exposed to an unexpected action.

Our civil and commercial litigation team is experienced in these types of cases and can help you assess your specific situation. Contact us for a review of your current or completed cases.

shutterstock 2696150007

Amendments to Article 141 of the Federal Tax Code: The mandatory order for the establishment of guarantees of the tax interest is eliminated.

On April 9, 2026, the Decree reforming Article 141 of the Federal Tax Code (“CFF”) was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation, which will come into force the day after its publication, in accordance with the First Transitory Article of the Decree itself.

Through this reform, the obligation of taxpayers to guarantee the tax interest in accordance with a order Previously, Article 141 of the Federal Tax Code (CFF) required taxpayers to offer, as a guarantee, first the option specified in section I, up to the maximum amount of their economic capacity, and demonstrate their inability to provide a guarantee under each subsequent option (sections I through VI) before being able to choose another form of guarantee. With the reform, taxpayers may freely choose any of the forms of guarantee provided for in Article 141, without needing to exhaust a specific order or demonstrate their inability to provide the preferred options.

In practical terms, prior to this reform, Article 141 of the Federal Tax Code (CFF) stipulated that to guarantee a tax debt (for example, when a tax credit is challenged and the administrative enforcement procedure is suspended) the taxpayer had to offer guarantees strictly respecting the following order:

  1. Deposit slip issued by an authorized institution.
  2. Letter of credit issued by an authorized institution.
  3. Pledge or mortgage.
  4. Bond issued by an authorized institution.
  5. Joint and several obligation assumed by a third party.
  6. Administrative embargo.

This meant that if a taxpayer wished to offer a bond (which in practice is usually the quickest and most accessible way), they first had to demonstrate to the tax authority that they did not have sufficient resources for a cash deposit or assets subject to pledge or mortgage that would cover the total amount of the debt.

This requirement caused delays, additional administrative costs, and, in many cases, unnecessarily complicated the guarantee establishment process. With the reform, these barriers disappear: taxpayers can now directly choose the guarantee option that best suits their needs and capabilities.

Likewise, the Second Transitory Article of the Decree establishes that tax interest guarantee procedures initiated between January 1, 2026, and the Decree's entry into force, as well as guarantees already established during that period in accordance with the order established in Article 141 in force at the time, may be subject to the new provisions, provided that the taxpayer expressly requests it from the tax collection authority within thirty (30) calendar days following the Decree's entry into force. In the case of guarantees already established, the substitution will not interrupt the suspension of the administrative enforcement procedure nor generate an additional requirement. The tax collection authority will resolve the request within a period not exceeding twenty (20) business days. Actions already completed and not challenged at the time of the request will remain in effect.

In light of the above, we recommend that our clients who have ongoing tax interest guarantee procedures (particularly those who, under the previous regime, were forced to establish guarantees in less convenient forms, such as pledge or mortgage, because they could not cover a deposit slip or a letter of credit) evaluate the possibility of requesting a change to a more agile and accessible form, such as a surety bond.

We hope you find this information useful. For any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the Foreign Trade and Tax Legal Team at Santamarina y Steta.

Santamarina y Steta strengthens its tax practice with the integration of two new partners

We strengthen our Tax Practice with the addition of two new Partners

Luis Curiel Piña and Francisco Carbajal Domínguez join our Tax Practice as partners, accompanied by a well-established team of specialized tax lawyers. They will work alongside Mariano Calderón Vega, partner in the firm’s tax practice. This integration was carried out with the support of Kerma Partners / AIM Legal Headhunters.

With this addition, we expand our ability to address our clients’ tax needs in a comprehensive manner, covering both advisory and planning, as well as litigation and controversies before tax authorities. The tax dimension is now more deeply integrated into our recognized transactional practice in M&A, restructurings, and financing.

In an increasingly demanding regulatory environment, transactional taxation is becoming crucial. With this integration, Santamarina + Steta strengthens its capacity to structure transactions with tax implications: M&A, financings, and restructurings, placing the tax function at the heart of its legal strategy. 79 years of experience, now with greater depth in one of the market's most critical areas.

Why now?

The legal environment in Mexico presents specific challenges for companies. According to our Study of Legal Services Trends in Mexico 2025, conducted with the participation of 150 legal leaders across the country, tax is the top legal priority for organizations over the next 12 months and is projected to remain the most critical area over the next five years.

The integration of this team is a direct response to that reality.

Luis Curiel S+S

Luis Curiel Piña

A tax litigation specialist with more than 25 years of experience in controversies before tax authorities, audits, refunds, and administrative appeals. Chambers & Partners ranks him in Band 2 for Tax Controversy, and Legal 500 recognizes him as a Leading Partner.

He currently serves as First Vice President of ANADE and will assume its presidency in 2027.

Francisco Carbajal S+S

Francisco Carbajal Domínguez

A specialist in tax advisory and complex transactions—including mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, financing, and multi-jurisdictional investments—with more than 20 years of experience in tax matters. Chambers & Partners recognizes him as Up & Coming in non-contentious tax, and Legal 500 names him a Next Generation Partner.

What this means for our Clients

With this integration, Santamarina + Steta’s tax platform joins one of the most active transactional platforms in the Mexican market, recognized for its track record in mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, and financing. Together, this creates a team of partners and associates whose complementary experience enables us to provide comprehensive legal advice to all of the firm’s clients.

Site Update (1)

CFE Portfolio 2026-2027: 58 projects to strengthen electricity transmission in Mexico

Executive Summary

On March 22, 2026, the Federal Electricity Commission (“CFE“) presented his “Transmission and Transformation Project Portfolio 2026-2027”, a strategic initiative to strengthen the National Transmission Network (“RNT“) through the active participation of the private sector. This portfolio is part of the 2025-2030 Expansion Plan and represents one of the most significant investment opportunities in the Mexican energy sector in recent years.

What does the portfolio consist of??

The portfolio comprises 49 competition packages encompassing a total of 58 projects, which translate into 387 individual works. These works include:

  • 138 transmission lines distributed throughout the national territory.
  • 249 electrical substations to strengthen the National Electric System.

The central objective is to meet the country's growing energy demand and ensure the reliability, safety, and efficiency of the transmission infrastructure.

Financing schemes

One of the most relevant characteristics of the portfolio is its mixed financing structurewhich combines two mechanisms:

  • CFE Fiber E: Scheme under which they will be developed 44 projects grouped in 35 contest packs, allowing private capital participation in the transmission infrastructure.
  • Public Works Funded: This modality is applicable to the rest of the projects in the portfolio.

The Energy Ministry emphasized that the energy sector will be responsible for more than 50% of the Infrastructure Investment Plan for Development with Well-beingwith a central role for the CFE. For its part, the Ministry of Economy stressed that coordination between the public and private sectors will be crucial for energy to continue being an engine of national development. (The digital seals have been cancelled or the “EFICINE” system has been applied.)

Bidding process and deadlines

The projects will be put out to tender in stages throughout 2026. The most relevant milestones are presented below:

PeriodProjectsEstimated investment
March 2026 (ongoing)5 projects in competitionMore than $1,048 billion pesos
Following months (2026)14 additional projects to be tenderedMore than $6,700 billion pesos

Transparency and procurement platform

In order to guarantee open and competitive processes, CFE presented the operation of a recruitment micrositea platform designed to ensure transparency at every stage of the bidding process. Likewise, CFE reiterated its commitment to strengthening national content and efficiency in energy transmission, in line with its strategy to promote “Made in Mexico".

The event was attended by representatives of business organizations such as CANAME, CANACERO and CMIC, as well as companies from the national energy sector interested in participating, which demonstrates the broad interest of the private industry in these opportunities.

Key aspects for interested companies

This portfolio represents a significant window of opportunity for developers, builders, manufacturers, and suppliers in the electrical sector. The key points to consider are the following:

  • National content: CFE has reiterated its commitment to national content, which means that participants must demonstrate the use of goods and services of Mexican origin in the execution of the projects.
  • Diversity of projectsThe structure of competition packages allows companies of different sizes and capabilities to participate based on their technical, operational, and financial strengths.
  • E-Fiber Scheme: Participation through CFE Fibra E involves specific considerations regarding corporate structure, cash flows, and risk distribution, making it essential to have specialized legal and financial advice prior to submitting proposals.
  • Digital platform: Those interested should familiarize themselves with the CFE's contracting microsite as the official channel for monitoring calls for bids, competition rules and results.

Contact: For more information about the bidding process, and the regulatory and legal implications of this portfolio, please contact us.

Santamarina Steta, can they force you to go to arbitration?

Can you be forced into arbitration? New legal precedent opens the door to challenging it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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