Go to main content
Santamarina and Steta Retention of Assets in Commercial Executive Judgment

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:

  1. Early protection: The plaintiff company no longer relies solely on garnishment. The garnishment becomes an early barrier to prevent the debtor from maneuvering.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

Santamarina Steta podcast: The new regulatory framework for mixed assignments and contracts in the hydrocarbons sector

The new regulatory framework for allocations and mixed contracts in the hydrocarbons sector

In this episode of Legal Evolution, we address the modifications to the regulatory framework for hydrocarbons, specifically the mixed development allocations and mixed contracts introduced by the Hydrocarbons Sector Law of March 2025. Joining us are Juan Carlos Machorro, partner, and Daniela Alcántara, associate in the Energy practice of our firm. We analyze the paradigm shift where allocations become the primary framework for exploration and extraction activities, while exploration and extraction contracts will be implemented only in exceptional circumstances.

Santamarina Steta podcast: Tariffs in Mexico, fair aspects and the impact on international trade

Tariffs in Mexico: fair aspects and the impact on international trade

In this episode of Legal Evolution, we explore in depth the complex issue of tariffs in Mexico.
We are joined by Jorge Molina Larrondo, a consultant in public policy and international trade, who offers a comprehensive overview of these measures. Our partners Juan Carlos Machorro and Alejandro Luna, along with our associate Michel Zelaya, provide an analytical framework to understand the legal challenges and opportunities that current tariff policy presents to the business environment.

Santamarina Steta: You have tax debts and want to regularize your tax situation.

Do you have tax debts and want to regularize them?

September 30th is the deadline to apply the 100% reduction in fines, surcharges, and enforcement costs.

The 2025 Revenue Law provides a tax incentive for a 100% reduction in fines, surcharges, and enforcement costs. The main requirements to qualify for the program are:

  1. If you are an individual or legal entity whose total income in the fiscal year in question did not exceed 35 million pesos.
  2. Whether it concerns fines imposed for violations indicated in tax, customs and foreign trade laws; fines derived from non-compliance with tax obligations other than payment obligations: fines with aggravating circumstances, as well as with respect to surcharges and execution costs related to own federal contributions, withheld or transferred, or with compensatory quotas, whose administration and collection corresponds to the Tax Administration Service or the National Customs Agency of Mexico, and
  3. No forgiveness, reduction, decrease or any other similar benefit would have been received based on the previous programs.
  4. Do not have a final conviction for committing any tax crime.
  5. Not being published in the lists of articles 69-B or 69-B Bis of the Federal Tax Code.

The application for the incentive is subject to submission of the application by September 30, 2025, as well as the filing of the corresponding tax returns, which must show the updated amounts omitted. The corresponding payment must be made in a single installment, no later than December 31, 2025.

This is a great opportunity for taxpayers to catch up on their tax obligations. We are available to assist you every step of the way.

Santamarina Steta data protection cybersecurity

Data protection and cybersecurity in business digital migration

Digital migration has transformed the way businesses operate in Mexico: e-commerce, cloud platforms, and hybrid models are now part of everyday life. However, this progress has also brought with it a critical challenge: ensuring the protection of personal data and having effective cybersecurity mechanisms in place.

In this S+S Insight, our partner Paola Morales analyzes the legal and strategic impact of cybersecurity on organizations, the regulatory obligations that Mexican companies must comply with, the risks of cybercrime, and the most common mistakes when implementing digital processes.

It also addresses key topics such as emerging regulation of artificial intelligence, the importance of building a culture of prevention, and the value of viewing cybersecurity not as an expense, but as a strategic investment that protects digital assets, reputation, and the trust of customers and partners.

Learn how to strengthen your business strategy to face the challenges of the digital economy.

Santamarina Steta Economic Package 2026 LIEPS

Economic Package for 2026: Changes to the Special Tax Law on Production and Services

On September 8, 2025, the Federal Executive Branch submitted to the Chamber of Deputies the Initiative with Draft Decree amending and adding various provisions of the Special Tax on Production and Services Law.

Below we present a summary of the most interesting proposals.

  • Increase the tax rate from 160% to 200% on cigars, cigarillos, and other manufactured tobacco. For cigars manufactured entirely by hand, the rate will be increased from 30.4% to 32%, as well as a gradual increase in the specific tax on sold cigars.
  • Establish a 200% tax rate for the sale or import of other products containing nicotine, with a specific quota based on the milligram content of natural or artificial nicotine.
  • Maintain the exemption from the sale of cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco products by persons other than manufacturers, producers, or importers.
  • Tax flavored beverages with added natural or artificial sweeteners, within the definition of flavored beverages.
  • Adjust the rate from 30% to 50% applicable to gambling and raffles, which will also apply to those conducted online or electronically, directly by the digital service provider or national and international digital platforms.
  • Tax at an 8% rate the sale to the general public of violent, extreme, or adult content not suitable for minors under 18 years of age in physical format, as well as services provided by nationals or foreigners that allow access to or download of such video games within the country.
  • For video game service providers without a business in Mexico, similar obligations are established for digital platforms of foreign residents in the Value Added Tax Law, as well as for intermediaries.
Santamarina Steta Economic Package 2026 LIF

Economic Package for 2026: Learn about the changes to the Federal Revenue Law for next fiscal year.

On September 8, 2025, the Federal Executive Branch submitted to the Chamber of Deputies the Federal Revenue Bill for fiscal year 2026.

Below, we present a summary of the most interesting proposals.

  • Update the surcharge rate to 1.38% per month on outstanding balances, 1.42% per month for installment payments of up to 12 months, 1.63% for installments of more than 12 months and up to 24 months, and 1.97% per month for installments of more than 24 months.
  • Maintain the benefit of reduced fines for violations arising from non-compliance with tax obligations other than payment, depending on the timing of the self-correction, as well as maintaining the 50% discount on the corresponding fine, after the start of verification powers but before the final report or observation letter, and 40% in electronic review.
  • Maintain various tax incentives, such as those for the purchase of diesel or biodiesel and their blends, for taxpayers dedicated exclusively to public and private land transportation, whether freight or passenger, as well as tourism, who use the National Toll Highway Network, or who sell books, newspapers, and magazines.
  • Increase the fixed withholding rate on the capital amount that gives rise to interest payments by the financial system to 0.90%.
  • Maintain support for individuals who pay taxes under the RESICO system and are exclusively dedicated to the primary sector, with the goal of paying income tax only on their income, and solely on the amount exceeding 900 pesos.
  • Non-deductibility of fees paid to IPAB by commercial banking institutions.
  • Standardize the treatment of the deduction for bad debts applicable to credit institutions with that of other taxpayers, eliminating their special treatment.
  • Increase the income tax withholding rate for individuals to 2.5% for the sale of goods and provision of services through electronic platforms and establish a withholding rate of 4% for legal entities, and even 20% in cases where they do not provide their RFC key to digital platforms.
  • Extend the obligation to withhold VAT to national and foreign digital intermediation platforms in the following cases:
    • To legal entities under the same terms as to natural persons.
    • To residents abroad without a permanent establishment in Mexico who sell assets in national territory.
    • To suppliers of goods and services in national territory when payments are deposited into bank or deposit accounts abroad.
  • Expand the information that digital platforms must provide to the SAT.
  • Establish that the provisional withholding of ISR for interest on securities lending transactions be made on the premium paid to the lender and not on the principal amount.
  • Relax the requirements for granting private equity funds investments in the domestic market, thus granting them fiscal transparency, in order to shift the administrative and financial burden of tax payment obligations to their constituents, members, or investors, allowing the funds to focus exclusively on their corporate purpose.
  • Maintain the tax regularization program for legal entities and individuals to facilitate the payment of debts, increasing the limit on their total income to 300 million pesos.
  • Grant facilities for the repatriation of capital held abroad until September 8, 2025, consisting of paying income tax at a rate of 15% without any deductions, on the condition that the capital is invested in productive activities in the country and that, in the event of distributing dividends or making capital repayments over a three-year period, 20% of the income tax is withheld from individuals instead of 10%.
  • Relieve tax and administrative burdens on individuals and corporations participating in the organization of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Santamarina Steta Economic Package 2026 CFF

Economic package for 2026. Learn about the most significant changes that could affect you.

On September 8, 2025, the Federal Executive Branch submitted to the Chamber of Deputies the Initiative with Draft Decree amending, adding to, and repealing various provisions of the Federal Tax Code. This amendment contains several important changes regarding audit powers, online digital tax receipts, the processing of appeals for revocation, and the guarantee of fiscal interest.

The most relevant proposals are the following:

Digital Tax Receipts over the Internet (CFDIs).

  • Power of the tax authority ("SAT") to deny registration in the RFC to legal entities when it detects that the legal representative or one or more of the partners, shareholders or associates and other persons that form part of its organizational structure have incurred in cases of restriction digital seals, improper transmission of tax losses, issuance of false digital tax receipts, having firm tax credits, that are found to be unlocated, among others.
  • Expressly establish as a requirement for CFDIs, which cover existing, genuine transactions or real legal acts, that in the event of exercising any verification power, the tax authority may verify their veracity, as well as the addition of a new power to verify compliance with the veracity of the CFDIs, from which the issuance of CFDIs may be suspended.
  • Establish the month in which the annual income tax return must be filed as the deadline for the cancellation of CFDIs.

Administrative reconsideration.

  • Note that it only applies to resolutions determining tax credits.

Strengthening the powers of the tax authority.

  • Add as reasons for temporary restriction of the digital seal certificate:
  • Have outstanding tax credits that have not been fully paid, provided that, in the immediately preceding fiscal year, they have issued CFDIs for a total amount exceeding four times the historical amount of the tax credit.
  • Deliberate use of erroneous information in CFDIs related to the marketing of hydrocarbons.
  • Failure to respond to requests for information regarding foreign trade.
  • It empowers the authority to request information related to accounts opened not only in credit institutions, but also in financial institutions in general, as well as to presume, unless proven otherwise, that deposits in accounts opened in the latter are income and the value of acts or activities.
  • Specify the cases in which the cancellation of the RFC is appropriate due to the taxpayer's inactivity.
  • Establish the obligation of service providers through digital platforms to allow the tax authority permanent, real-time online access to the information held in their systems and records.
  • Implementation of the use of technological tools in the exercise of verification powers, allowing photographs, audio recordings, or videos to be attached to the minutes drawn up.
  • The appointment for reporting the facts or omissions discovered in the exercise of verification powers is modified, so that it will be carried out within a maximum period of ten business days after notification of the minutes or observation letter where they are recorded.
  • Establish the possibility that, in a cabinet review, the authority may require reports, data, documents, accounting records or part thereof, as well as economic and financial information, in the order, methodology, and characteristics that allow for the relationship between the taxpayer's transactions, acts, or activities.
  • Allow deferred or installment payment of tax credits in customs matters.

Infractions and sanctions.

  • Incorporate as a violation, making the issuance of CFDIs conditional on the display of the Tax Identification Card.

Appeal for revocation.

  • Add as a reason for inadmissibility of the appeal, when the taxpayer states that he is unaware of the appealed act.

Guarantee of fiscal interest.

  • Consider that the sufficiency of the guarantees of the fiscal interest will be from their offer and not from their acceptance.
  • Establish a mandatory order in the ways in which taxpayers can guarantee tax interest, the first being the deposit note issued by the Banco del Bienestar SNC. The pledge or mortgage is adjusted and the tax interest guarantee accounts, securities, as well as the credit portfolio are eliminated.
  • Eliminate the possibility of not guaranteeing the fiscal interest in the appeal for revocation and establish the obligation to do so in federal administrative litigation and amparo proceedings in accordance with the proposed priority.

Tax and foreign trade crimes.

  • Assimilate to the crime of smuggling the conduct in which producers, manufacturers, and importers of cigars and other manufactured tobacco fail to print the security code on each pack.
  • Adding as a crime, failure to prove the non-arrival of foreign trade merchandise to the general deposit warehouse due to an act of God or force majeure.
  • Add four new presumptions of the crime of smuggling.
Santamarina Steta podcast: the new legal provisions regarding money laundering

The new legal provisions regarding money laundering

In this episode of Legal Evolution, we are joined by Juan Carlos Machorro and Guillermo Moreno, partners at our firm, to discuss the new anti-money laundering legislation that came into effect in July for vulnerable activities—those non-financial activities at risk of being used for money laundering. Specifically, we discuss the general scope of the legislation, the new provisions, and the expected effectiveness of this new regime for vulnerable activities.

Santamarina Steta Podcast: The New Legislation on Economic Competition, Part 2

The new legislation on Economic Competition (Part 2)

In this episode, we continue our discussion on the changes to competition law, focusing on the challenges facing the new competition authority, as well as the challenges posed by implementing the reforms. To this end, we will include practical examples with the participation of our partners Juan Carlos Machorro and Vicente Grau, an expert in the field, along with associates Mariana Alcalá and Sofía Ramírez, who offer different perspectives to anticipate the future of the sector in light of the recent modifications.

Santamarina and Steta dispute shareholder meetings

Part II: New criteria of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation regarding the Calls to Shareholders' Meetings

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.