MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Agustín Aguilar López, Carlos García Cueva, Claudio Catalán Arvide and Joana Karime Novia Ibarra, Aziz & Kaye Business Law
10. Other Remedies 10.1 Injunctions The FECL provides for injunctive relief measures dur - ing investigations by the competition authority. In judicial proceedings for antitrust damages, the law also allows for precautionary measures, such as the attachment and seizure of property and other actions necessary to preserve the claim and ensure the effec - tive enforcement of any judgment, provided that (i) the status quo as of the date of service of the order is maintained, (ii) public order, public interest, or the rights of third parties are not affected, and (iii) no rights are granted to the claimant equivalent to those that would be obtained through a favourable final judg - ment. These measures may apply not only to the potential debtor but also to individuals who act as partners or There are no alternative methods to resolve disputes for damages, however, there are some authors who point out the possibility of resorting to mediation or arbitration. However, these alternate resolution methods cannot be considered as mandatory when deriving from a non-contractual liability, that is, for the violation of the FECL. administrators of the debtor’s assets. 10.2 Alternative Dispute Resolution There is no litigation funding in Mexican law. However, in certain cases, the payment of expenses and costs may be requested from the party who lost the trial for a claim for damages. 11.2 Costs Whether the payment of costs can be awarded is determined in the respective judgment. The need to guarantee expenses and costs is not specifically fore - seen in advance. The amount of costs can be deter - mined based on the fee established by law or based 11. Funding and Costs 11.1 Litigation Funding
However, in civil matters, there is at least one prec - edent in which the Supreme Court ordered a company to pay punitive damages, raising the possibility that this criterion could, as an exceptional measure, be applied in antitrust cases deemed particularly harmful (such as cartel cases). Mexican law does not expressly provide for the payment of interest in antitrust damages cases, nor is there judicial precedent clarifying the courts’ approach, given the absence of damages awards in this area. Nonetheless, the authors consider it possi - ble that courts would require that damages amounts be adjusted for inflation or updated to present value to reflect the harm caused by the anti-competitive conduct over time. Liability is not joint and several. It is important to high - light that, for applicants to the leniency programme the benefits granted are limited to the reduction or elimination of administrative fines and criminal immu - nity. However, obtaining immunity does not exempt the applicant from being sued for damages by third parties affected by anti-competitive conduct. In other words, immunity does not prevent civil actions for damages, nor does it provide any reduction or dis - count on the amount of compensation owed, even if the offender has been granted administrative or criminal immunity. Therefore, the granting of immu - nity by the competition authority does not limit the civil liability of the applicant towards those harmed by the conduct. 9.2 Contribution There is no legal basis or procedure for claiming contributions from third parties in Mexican law, nor is there clarity on the criteria used by the courts, as there have been no judgments for damages related to violations of the Antitrust Law in Mexico. 9. Liability and Contribution 9.1 Joint and Several Liability
118 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook