MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Carlos Chávez, Juan Carlos Burgos, Gerardo Rodríguez and Édgar Martín, Galicia Abogados
Introduction Mexico’s merger control landscape has been reshaped over the past 12 months. A new authority has replaced the one that had operated for over a decade, notifica - tion thresholds have been lowered, filing exemptions have been eliminated, a new and significantly more expensive fee regime has been introduced, and the Supreme Court has issued a series of binding rulings that reinforce the authority’s position in challenging the transactions it reviews. For any company doing business in Mexico or considering an acquisition with a Mexican dimension, understanding these changes is a basic requirement for effective transaction planning. This article draws on the most current analysis and practitioner insights to give companies the clearest possible picture of where things stand and what to expect. A New Authority Takes Over The most fundamental change of the past year was the replacement of Mexico’s Federal Commission of Economic Competition (COFECE) by a new institu - tion: the National Antitrust Commission (known by its Spanish acronym, CNA, or Comisión Nacional Antimonopolio ). President Claudia Sheinbaum sub - mitted her list of candidates to the Senate to form the Board of Commissioners of the CNA, and Senate confirmation triggered the full entry into force of the new authority. The CNA replaced COFECE, and the previous antitrust framework ceased to apply to new proceedings from that point forward. The CNA’s mandate also expanded to cover the tel - ecommunications and broadcasting sectors, which had previously been overseen by a separate regula - tor. This consolidation of jurisdiction under one roof is a significant development for companies operating in those industries. Institutionally, the transition has been stable. The new authority retained much of the previous leadership, including the same board chair, roughly 40% of the Commissioners, the Technical Secretary, and the Head of the Investigative Authority, along with stable leader - ship in merger control and other key directorates. At the staff level, 70–80% of mid-level officials remain in place, potentially reflecting the desire of the Execu -
tive Branch to avoid institutional disruption ahead of the upcoming USMCA negotiations. The shift has pro - duced little operational disruption, except in antitrust enforcement, where cartel and abuse-of-dominance investigations largely stalled for months, with no new cases opened in 2025. At the same time, co-ordina - tion with other government agencies has increased, and the federal executive has taken a more visible role in shaping competition policy priorities. For merger control in particular, businesses should be aware that enforcement priorities may be influenced by broader policy considerations, particularly in sec - tors considered strategically important. Record-High Filings: More Deals Are Being Caught One of the most striking developments of the past year is the sheer volume of merger notifications. Mexico recorded the highest number of merger notifications in its competition law history (184), driven by regulatory changes and strong M&A activity. Notification thresh - olds were reduced by 17%, and two filing exemptions were eliminated, expanding the universe of reportable transactions. Despite an unusually strong Mexican peso, which partially offset the regulatory reduction in cross-border deals, filings rose 20% above the ten- year average. The drivers of this increase seem to be structural, not cyclical. Notification thresholds are lower, meaning smaller deals are now caught. Two exemptions that previously allowed certain transactions to proceed without notification have been removed entirely. And with the authority now partially funded through filing fees, merger notifications are expected to maintain a similar pace in 2026. As of May alone, the CNA has received more than 100 merger notifications, putting it on track to exceed 200 filings by the end of the year. As a practical implication, companies planning cross- border deals with a Mexican footprint should assume that a filing requirement may arise. A preliminary assessment of whether notification is required should be built into the deal planning process from the very outset as opposed to the final stages of due diligence.
397 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook