Retention of assets in a commercial executive trial: An ally to protect your rights
In business, few things are more frustrating than winning a lawsuit and discovering at the end of the process that there are no longer enough assets to effectively collect the debt. Time is against the creditor: while the litigation lasts, there is a risk that the debtor will hide, squander, or transfer their assets, rendering the judgment ineffective.
Faced with this reality, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation recently issued a highly relevant ruling for companies and creditors: it confirmed that the retention of assets is a precautionary measure that can be applied in a Commercial Executive Judgment, and that it operates independently of the embargo that can be ordered in a demand for payment and summons process.
This ruling opens a window of additional protection for those seeking to ensure compliance with their loans.
What has the Court decided?
In a jurisprudence that has gradually been used more by litigants[1], the First Chamber of the Court established that the retention of assets provided for in the Commercial Code is not incompatible with the seizure provided for in the processing of a Commercial Enforcement Proceeding. The two provisions serve different purposes:
- Embargo: It secures assets so that, when the time comes to execute the sentence, there is wealth from which to collect.
- Retention of assets: prevents the debtor from hiding, selling or transferring them while the trial progresses.
The major development is that the Court recognized that these measures can coexist. That is, a judge can order the seizure of assets even when there is the possibility of a seizure, thus strengthening the preventive protection of credit.
Scope and practical implications
This judicial criterion has direct consequences on the way a Commercial Executive Judgment is litigated:
- Early protection: The plaintiff company no longer relies solely on garnishment. The garnishment becomes an early barrier to prevent the debtor from maneuvering.
- Reduced risk of fraud: In practice, many debtors take advantage of procedural deadlines to sell or hide their assets. With this jurisprudence, judges have an additional tool to close the door on such behavior.
- Greater bargaining power: When the debtor knows that his assets may be seized and, furthermore, embargoed, his room for maneuver is reduced. This can tip the balance in favor of a faster and more favorable agreement for the creditor.
- Flexibility for the creditor: The possibility of requesting retention without excluding seizure offers the litigant a wider range of precautionary measures.
Strategic advantages for companies
For a company facing a significant debt, this criterion can make the difference between successful litigation and a fruitless one:
- Certainty of recovery: assets remain visible and available throughout the process.
- Deterrence to non-compliance: Debtors have less incentive to delay or hinder the trial.
- Litigation Optimization: Having robust preventive measures allows the creditor to focus efforts on resolving the fund.
In short, case law reinforces the effectiveness of commercial enforcement proceedings as a flexible and reliable mechanism for recovering debts.
Under the aforementioned scenario, it is clear that the Court's decision confirms that asset retention is not merely an accessory to seizure, but rather an independent and complementary instrument. For companies, this translates into greater security and less risk when litigating a debt.
Thus, before initiating a Commercial Enforcement Proceeding, it is advisable to evaluate the appropriateness of requesting the retention of assets as a precautionary measure. This can ensure the effectiveness of the claim and protect the business's interests.
[1] See the jurisprudence whose heading reads: “RETENTION OF ASSETS. IS A PRECAUTIONARY PROVISION APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT, WHICH OPERATES INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE FIGURE OF EMBARGO., which can be consulted at the following address: https://sjf2.scjn.gob.mx/detalle/tesis/2026431











