MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Gabriela Pellón, Cecilia Díaz-de-Rivera, Fabiola Jiménez and Lucía Ibáñez, Galicia Abogados
Mexican law offers a robust toolkit to address these challenges – but only when the tools are used as part of an integrated architecture. Corporate by-laws, shareholders’ agreements, voting arrangements, fideicomisos , technical committees, advisory boards, family councils, family protocols, corporate arrange - ments, balance sheet management techniques and dispute resolution mechanisms each have a role to play. However, none of them will be sufficient if thought of as a unique and/or definitive mechanism, if implemented without a clear understanding of the family’s dynamics and objectives, the personal char - acteristics and desires of the relevant family members, or without allowing these mechanisms to evolve and adapt over time. The purpose of wealth management and corporate governance practices should shift from static succes - sion planning to dynamic governance structures. The goal is not to force continuity at all costs, it is to build institutions that allow the family to continue together when doing so makes sense, and to separate interests in an orderly manner when remaining together is no longer efficient or aligned with the family’s long-term objectives and the individual family members’ goals and desires. This is particularly relevant since Mexican families have more international ties than ever before: they own assets across multiple jurisdictions, have mem - bers living abroad, hold interests through foreign enti - ties or trusts, and must therefore navigate different – and often multiple – tax systems as well as inheritance and marital property regimes. In this context, the role of counsel extends well beyond preparing legal docu - ments. It is to help the family plan, reflect and translate its values and economic objectives into governance rules that are legally sound, commercially workable and capable of surviving generational change. Section I: Dynamic Corporate Governance – building structures that adapt before becoming obsolete Before a family business can implement sophisticated governance structures, it must move from informal decision-making to documented rules, defined bod - ies, reliable information and professional management practices. In many family companies, the founder’s
judgment, charisma, hard work and control is suffi - cient to make the business grow up to some point. However, as time passes, the business grows – and as the family expands – that model may become obso - lete. Institutionalisation means converting the founder’s principles and the family’s expectations into policies, rules, processes and decision-making forums that others can understand and apply. Professionalisation means running the business according to objective standards of competence, accountability, internal control and strategic planning. Together, these pro - cesses draw a clear line between what belongs to the family sphere and what belongs to the business sphere. This distinction is far from theoretical. It has direct consequences for compensation, use of company assets, dividend policy, reinvestment, employment of relatives, reporting obligations and access to informa - tion. Consider a common scenario: family members working in the business prioritise reinvestment and long-term growth since they receive a salary for their work, while passive owners depend on dividend dis - tributions. Both positions are entirely legitimate. The risk arises when there is no clear policy, no shared financial information and no forum where expectations can be discussed before they harden into personal grievances. A dynamic governance structure should therefore begin with basic – but often uncomfortable – ques - tions. Who owns the shares, and in what proportions? Who controls strategic decisions? What percentage of the family’s wealth is concentrated in the business? Which family members work in the company, and are they hired under the same standards as non-family employees? How are family shareholders being pre - pared to act as responsible owners? Does the share - holders’ meeting function as a real governance body, or merely as a formal annual ritual? Is there a board that challenges management, or one that simply rati - fies decisions already taken elsewhere? In Mexico, the shareholders’ meeting remains the cen - tral corporate body for many family companies. The General Law for Commercial Entities ( Ley General de
444 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook