The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has recently issued a highly relevant ruling for corporate litigation related to the validity of shareholder meetings. This ruling, Judgment 1a./J. 77/2025 (11a.), registered under digital number 2030475, establishes that all calls to general shareholder meetings must be published in the electronic system of the Ministry of Economy, without exception, even when the bylaws provide otherwise.

The case arose from a lawsuit filed by a shareholder who challenged the validity of a meeting, having been deprived of timely notice of the meeting's call, which led to a legal dispute over the legality of the resolutions adopted. The meeting was published only in one newspaper. -as provided for in the bylaws-, but not on the Ministry of Economy's website, as required by Article 186 of the General Law on Commercial Companies (LGSM). Both the trial judge and the appeals court declared the meeting illegal, and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation confirmed that compliance with this formality is not optional nor can it be substituted by statutory provisions.

The criterion now has the status of binding jurisprudence, requiring all judges and courts in the country to apply it in similar cases. This has a direct impact on corporations, their governing bodies, and their shareholders.

Since the June 13, 2014, reform to Article 186 of the LGSM (General Law on Corporate Governance), the legislator established that calls for meetings must be published on the Ministry of Economy's electronic portal, in order to guarantee transparency, accessibility, and legal certainty in corporate processes. This official publication cannot be replaced by alternative means. -newspapers, internal circulars or emails- Even if they are provided for in the statutes, they can only be used as complementary mechanisms.

Strict compliance with this obligation ensures not only the legality of the meeting call but also the validity of the resolutions adopted at the meetings. Failure to comply with this requirement can lead to litigation that could result in the invalidity of corporate resolutions, as occurred in the case that gave rise to the jurisprudence in question.

Recommendations for companies and shareholders to prevent corporate litigation.

Since this jurisprudence is mandatory, it is advisable for corporations and their governing bodies to review and, where appropriate, adapt their corporate practices to ensure that all meeting notices are published in accordance with the law, by posting the corresponding notice in the Ministry of Economy's electronic system.

Likewise, it is recommended that corporations and their governing bodies review and update their bylaws to avoid contradictions or confusion that could lead to challenges, conflicts between shareholders, or even the invalidity of corporate acts.

Finally, it is essential to remember that legality in the processes of calling and holding meetings is key to protecting shareholder rights and ensuring the legal certainty of corporate decisions.

In the face of the accelerated digital transformation that characterizes contemporary society, artificial intelligence (AI) has become an everyday resource with an impact on education, work, and personal life, facilitating the management of large volumes of information and optimizing complex tasks.

For this reason, numerous countries and international institutions have issued regulatory frameworks, ethical guidelines, and general guidelines that seek to define the scope, limits, and minimum requirements for the responsible and transparent use of this technology.

For example, in June 2024, the European Parliament approved Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence. Its purpose is to ensure that the development and use of AI in the European Union is carried out safely, ethically, and in compliance with fundamental rights. To this end, the regulation classifies different uses of AI based on the risk they represent and requires transparency, human oversight, and accountability to drive responsible technological innovation.

This Regulation classifies any AI system intended to assist judges in the investigation of facts, the interpretation of the law, or the resolution of specific cases as high risk, warning that these systems may impact democracy, the rule of law, and effective judicial protection. Therefore, it requires that such tools operate solely as auxiliary tools and under strict human supervision, making it clear that the final judicial decision must remain exclusively a human responsibility to ensure impartiality, transparency, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Given the rapid growth in the use of AI, it is necessary in our country to carefully analyze this situation and adopt specific regulations that define its scope, uses, and limits in accordance with the fundamental rights of those governed. However, to date, no law has been passed comprehensively regulating its use.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the area of ​​administration of justice, on August 22, 2025, two judicial criteria issued by the Second Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the Second Circuit ("Collegiate Court") were published, with titles:

• ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLIED IN JURISDICTIONAL PROCESSES. MINIMUM ELEMENTS THAT MUST BE OBSERVED FOR ITS ETHICAL AND RESPONSIBLE USE FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE.
• Artificial intelligence applied in judicial proceedings. It constitutes a valid tool for calculating the amount of guarantees set in amparo lawsuits.

By way of context, in a legal proceeding before the Collegiate Court, the court decided to modify the amount set as a guarantee for the registration of an amparo claim in a registry office.

In the ruling issued by the Collegiate Court, the issue of the use of artificial intelligence was addressed to assist judges in correctly addressing and determining the amount of the aforementioned guarantee, based on arithmetic and mathematical data.

In this regard, the collegiate body thoroughly analyzed the use of this tool as an auxiliary to its jurisdictional function, concluding that, given the advancement of new technologies and digital justice trends, AI is emerging as an innovative, non-mandatory mechanism for automating administrative tasks and facilitating numerical reasoning within jurisdictional functions.

Thus, in the case of judicial proceedings, the ethical and responsible use of AI from a human rights perspective requires judges to observe certain principles of proportionality; protection of privacy and personal data; transparency; explainability; and human oversight and decision-making.

These ethical guidelines and standards allow the use of AI solely and exclusively as an auxiliary tool in judicial work, without replacing a thorough and detailed human analysis of each specific case prior to the issuance of any judicial decision. Additionally, it is important to consider that to ensure proper use of this technological tool, judges must explain in detail what auxiliary use this tool will have in the specific judicial process, systematizing tasks and the management of large volumes of information.

Thus, recent judicial criteria allow for the gradual introduction of the use of digital AI tools, limiting their application exclusively to support complex and technical tasks, without ever replacing the human capacity and obligation to administer justice, thus respecting the principles of due justification and motivation that every judicial decision must contain.

In conclusion, recent judicial decisions set a precedent for the incorporation of AI into judicial functions, making it clear that its role should be merely auxiliary and never substitute. However, given the accelerated technological transformation, it is essential that Mexican legislators issue comprehensive regulations that establish clear parameters and ethical guidelines for its use, guaranteeing the protection of fundamental rights and transparency in proceedings. These theses, therefore, constitute a first approach to developing a regulatory framework that allows us to take advantage of the benefits of AI in the administration of justice, without compromising impartiality or the human role in decision-making.

• The Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ("SCJN"), through General Agreement 5/2025 of July 1, 2025, decided to postpone the issuance of resolutions related to contradictions of criteria and contentious-administrative appeals that involve article 117 of the Federal Tax Code ("CFF") and article 16, section II, of the Federal Law of Contentious-Administrative Procedure ("LFPCA").

• The objective is to ensure a uniform and procedurally clear interpretation between the collegiate courts and the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (“TFJA”).

General Agreement 5/2025[1] It establishes a pause in the resolution of particularly sensitive matters in administrative litigation. The measure applies to conflicting criteria encountered in Regional Plenary Sessions, direct amparos, and appeals for review against rulings of the TFJA (Federal Court of Justice), when the central issue is the manner in which the authority resolves an appeal for revocation filed by a person who is unaware of one or more of the contested acts, whether final or issued during the procedure.

In these cases, the debate revolves around whether the taxpayer can expand their challenge pursuant to Article 117 of the CFF, and whether these acts can be presented as evidence in the nullity trial under the provisions of Article 16, Section II, of the LFPCA.

The significance of this agreement lies in the fact that, by temporarily suspending the resolution of these cases, the Court avoids the emergence of conflicting criteria that could generate legal uncertainty. This additional time allows the Supreme Court to analyze the underlying issue in greater detail and, in due course, issue a final ruling that provides certainty and consistency in the interpretation of the law. Given that this is an issue closely linked to the right of taxpayers to defense, this caution reflects a commitment to issuing a sound, technically supported, and general-scope opinion.

In practice, the decision has important implications. For authorities and courts, it is a sign of prudence: it avoids issuing resolutions that could later be invalidated or modified, as long as there is no clear directive from the Supreme Court of Justice. For taxpayers, it represents the possibility of full recognition of their right to defend themselves, including the expansion of arguments and evidence when previously unknown acts emerge. For law firms and legal departments, this pause forces them to review strategies, prepare solid arguments, and anticipate how a possible jurisprudential criterion could change the way cases are constructed and proven.

Our recommendation is that this waiting period be used proactively. It is time to strengthen files, properly identify and document intra-procedural acts, and build an argument that supports the broad defense provided for in Article 117 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also key to closely monitor ongoing conflicts of opinion, as their resolution will determine the standard adopted by the courts going forward. Internal coordination between the legal and accounting departments will be crucial to anticipate and adapt to the new interpretive framework that emerges.

In a broader sense, General Agreement 5/2025 confirms the Supreme Court's trend toward issuing clearer and more comprehensive criteria that consider the entire context of the administrative litigation process. This requires litigants to be more prepared and pay more attention to procedural details, as future jurisprudence will not only resolve a specific case but will also have a transversal impact on the defense strategy for future cases. Therefore, the pause ordered by the Court today should not be viewed as a simple delay, but as a strategic opportunity to anticipate the criteria that will define the course of administrative litigation in the coming years.

[1] General Agreement 5/2025, OF JULY 117, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY-FIVE, OF THE PLAN OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE NATION, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE POSTPONEMENT OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE RESOLUTION IN THE CONTRADICTIONS OF CRITERIA OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REGIONAL PLENARY COURTS AS WELL AS IN THE DIRECT AMPAROS AND IN THE REVIEW RESOURCES FILED AGAINST SENTENCE ISSUED BY THE CHAMBERS OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE, LOCATED IN THE CIRCUIT COLLEGIATE COURTS, IN WHICH THE ISSUE RELATIVE TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE FORM IN WHICH THE AUTHORITY THAT RESOLVES A REVOCATION APPEAL SHOULD PROCEED, WHEN THE APPELLANT STATES THAT HE IS UNAWARE OF THE ACTS APPEALS, WHETHER THESE ARE FINAL OR INTRAPROCEDURAL, THAT IS, WHETHER THEY SHOULD DISCLOSURE ALL THE ACTS THAT THEY REFUSE TO KNOW OR ONLY THE FINAL ONES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 16 OF THE FEDERAL TAX CODE, SO THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CAN EXPAND SAID MEANS OF APPEAL AND, IF IT IS FEASIBLE, EXHIBIT IT IN THE NULLITY TRIAL, IN WHICH THE RESOLUTION OF THE REFERRED REVOCATION APPEAL IS CHALLENGED, IN TERMS OF ARTICLE XNUMX, SECTION II OF THE FEDERAL LAW OF ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION PROCEDURE.

• The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ("SCJN"), in Amparo en Revisión 298/2024, ruled that it is admissible to file an appeal for review in indirect amparo even after the judgment has become final, provided that the requesting party demonstrates that it was not the one who processed the constitutional trial.
• This decision strengthens the right of every person to access justice and effective judicial protection, even when there are procedural errors attributable to third parties.

In a highly impactful ruling, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) recognized that if a person did not file or sign the indirect amparo petition, even if the judgment has already become final, they may file an appeal for review. This interpretation corrects shortcomings resulting from confusion or negligence on the part of others and reaffirms the importance of protecting the legal security and certainty of the plaintiff through timely judicial intervention. The significance of this ruling lies in its emphasis on the principle of effective judicial protection.

It allows for the correction of formal errors that could leave a person unprotected due to procedural lapses, preventing purely procedural issues—such as an incorrect signature or failure to notify the court—from impeding the legitimate exercise of rights. However, it is important for judges to apply this criterion with caution to prevent the provision from becoming a resource misused for purely dilatory purposes. Excessive or strategic use of this option could lead to procedural abuses intended to artificially prolong the resolution of cases and hinder the prompt administration of justice.

In practice, this resolution requires law firms, authorities, and courts to more rigorously review initial amparo claim processes. For authorities, it means ensuring that a fair trial is not impeded by genuine procedural errors, while also preventing their strategic use to delay proceedings. For those seeking justice, it offers a second chance in situations where they were not responsible for the error. For legal departments, it entails strengthening internal procedures, verifying who signs or promotes lawsuits, and considering the filing of extraordinary appeals only in cases where there are genuine procedural flaws beyond the appellant's control.

Our recommendation is to review the internal mechanisms for instructing amparo proceedings to identify and correct possible errors in representation or signature. Furthermore, it is crucial to communicate this criterion to the legal team so that, in viable cases, a review appeal can be prepared even after the judgment has become final, always ensuring that its use is legitimate and not for delaying purposes. Likewise, remaining attentive to possible additional criteria required by the First Chamber will strengthen timely adaptation to this new procedural avenue.

In short, this SCJN decision constitutes a significant step forward in strengthening the protection of defendants against procedural errors. However, its potential to expand access to justice must be balanced with measures to prevent procedural abuses that could jeopardize the effectiveness and speed of the judicial system.