Latin America: International firms

Riesgos geopolíticos, conflictos bélicos, volatilidad arancelaria, volatilidad en la relación entre Estados Unidos, Europa y China, la guerra en Irán, sino Ucrania, entre otros, han cambiado dramáticamente el panorama global en años recientes y ha influido en el flujo de capitales. Francisco Cerezo, socio director de la práctica latinoamericana de DLA Piper, comenta que en este contexto la transición energética, minería crítica y el nearshoring destacan como industrias emergentes atractivas para el capital estratégico corporativo sin dejar de lado la tecnología, incluyendo la inteligencia artificial los centros datos y la infraestructura adyacente, fintech, así como agroindustria e infraestructura tradicional. El capital que está llegando a la región es de origen europeo, coreano, japonés, chino y asiático en general, de acuerdo con el especialista, quien menciona también los fondos soberanos, particularmente los del Medio Oriente, que han venido desempeñando un papel cada vez más relevante, así como el private equity, fondos de capital privado tanto estadounidenses como europeos, y grupos importantes empresariales o family offices latinoamericanos. Una de las transacciones emblemáticas para la firma en este nuevo escenario es la adquisición de los activos de Iberdrola por parte de Grupo Cox, considerada entre las más grandes del sector de energía mexicano en 2025. La presencia de China en América Latina: de préstamos millonarios a la inversión directa Al referirse al nearshoring, comenta que desempeña un papel vital si se considera la pérdida de la estabilidad que tenían ciertos países respecto al mercado estadounidense, lo que ha provocado una reevaluación por parte de empresas globales de industrias como la textilera, farmacéutica, automotriz, manufactura y tecnología de cómo se posicionan para proteger sus canales de distribución y mitigar el riesgo arancelario, entre otros. Cree que esta tendencia se mantendrá en los próximos años. La volatilidad también se ha reflejado en el encarecimiento del financiamiento y el apalancamiento, por lo cual se están viendo cada vez más transacciones que dependen de equity o que ameritan unos modelos de financiamiento de deuda mucho más complejos.

Regional Spanish CNMC hosts annual meeting of Ibero-American Association of Energy Regulatory Authorities and adopts Madrid Declaration. In May 2026, the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC), which is also the energy regulator in Spain, hosted the annual meeting of the Ibero-American Association of Energy Regulatory Authorities (Asociación Iberoamericana de Entidades Reguladoras de la Energía, or ARIAE). Regulators from Ibero-American countries – along with Portuguese-speaking African regulators – discussed opportunities to enhance regulatory frameworks for integrating renewable energy into the electricity, natural gas, and liquid fuels sectors.  Argentina Argentina moves toward a suspensory merger control regime. Argentina is set to transition to a suspensory merger control regime, as Article 9 of the Argentine Competition Law will become fully effective on November 17, 2026 – one year after the appointment of the President and other members of the Argentine Competition Authority. Under this framework, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) will be subject to approval by the Argentine Competition Authority before closing. With this change, Argentina will align more closely with international practice requiring approval for regulated M&A transactions. Chile TDLC rejects abuse of dominance claim against Metrogas and Agesa in gas distribution case. On January 28, 2026, Chile’s Competition Tribunal (Tribunal de Defensa de la Libre Competencia, or TDLC) issued Judgment No. 208/2026, rejecting a consumer claim alleging that the 2016 corporate division of Metrogas – which created Agesa – and a subsequent gas supply agreement constituted a scheme to circumvent Metrogas's profitability cap and enabled exploitative abuse through excessive pricing. The TDLC found that the corporate division was carried out transparently and was addressed by the law itself, dismissing both the fraud and excessive pricing allegations. TDLC approves settlement between FNE, Delivery Hero, and Glovo in cross-border market allocation case. On February 5, 2026, the TDLC approved a settlement agreement between the Fiscalía Nacional Económica (FNE), Delivery Hero SE (parent of PedidosYa), and Glovoapp23 SA (parent of Glovo) in a case concerning an international market allocation agreement. The FNE alleged that the companies entered into asset-transfer agreements in 2019 (Project Green) that included non-compete clauses allocating territories across Chile, Egypt, Peru, and Ecuador, resulting in Glovo's exit from Chile. The settlement imposes a fine of approximately USD31.5 million payable to the Treasury and requires Delivery Hero to implement annual competition law training for PedidosYa executives for five years. For additional background, see “FNE pursues Delivery Hero and Glovo for alleged market allocation” in the November 2025 issue of Juntos.   TDLC rejects SumUp's abuse of dominance claim against Transbank in payment processing case. On February 3, 2026, the TDLC issued Judgment No. 209/2026, rejecting SumUp's claim against Transbank SA alleging that Transbank’s 2022 increase in acquirer margin fees breached a 2022 Supreme Court ruling and constituted a margin squeeze amounting to abuse of dominance. The TDLC dismissed both claims, finding that alternative providers were available and that SumUp failed to demonstrate that Transbank acted contrary to the Supreme Court's decision or that its margins had become negative.   Supreme Court overturns TDLC rulings in interlocking cases. On March 2, 2026, Chile's Supreme Court overturned two TDLC judgments (2025) that sanctioned several entities for violating rules regarding interlocking directorates – which occur when an individual serves on the boards of competing companies simultaneously. In the first case, Juan Hurtado Vicuña served simultaneously as director of Consorcio and Larraín Vial; in the second, Hernán Büchi served on the boards of Banco de Chile, Consorcio, and Falabella. The Supreme Court held that 1) the interlocking prohibition applies only to individuals, not to the companies in which they participate, and 2) parent companies cannot be deemed “competing enterprises” merely because their subsidiaries operate in overlapping markets. The ruling nullified fines totaling approximately CLP7.5 billion but did not affect prior settlement agreements with Hernán Büchi and Falabella.   TDLC approves settlement with Booking.com eliminating price parity clauses in digital lodging market. On March 23, 2026, the TDLC approved a settlement between the FNE and Booking.com BV, concluding an investigation into the company’s use of most favored nation, or price parity, clauses that restricted accommodation providers from offering lower prices on competing channels. Booking.com committed to eliminating such clauses, refraining from reintroducing them, removing external pricing criteria from its loyalty programs, and paying USD6 million to the Treasury. The obligations will remain in effect for a minimum of three years, after which Booking.com may seek review.   FNE files complaint against PedidosYa for alleged breach of 2023 settlement banning price parity clauses in food delivery. On March 11, 2026, the FNE filed a complaint before the TDLC against Delivery Hero E-Commerce Chile SpA (PedidosYa) alleging a breach of the extrajudicial settlement approved by the TDLC in December 2023, which prohibited PedidosYa from implementing most favored nation, or price parity, clauses with its partner restaurants. The FNE alleges that PedidosYa used a banner labeled “Mismo precio que en local” (“Same price as in-store”) that effectively restricted restaurants from offering lower prices through their own channels or competing platforms. The FNE has requested a fine of approximately USD3.8 million. Mexico Mexico’s CNA sanctions companies for exclusivity clauses in medical oxygen supply contracts. On March 19, 2026, Mexico’s National Antitrust Commission (Comisión Nacional Antimonopolio, or CNA) imposed sanctions on two companies for engaging in anticompetitive practices related to the use of exclusivity clauses in medicinal oxygen supply contracts. According to the CNA, the sanctioned companies included exclusivity provisions in their supply agreements that prevented private clinics and hospitals from purchasing medicinal oxygen from alternative suppliers. The contracts also contained automatic renewal clauses and early termination penalties that applied to clients’ existing and future medical facilities. The CNA determined that these contractual provisions restricted competition, hindered entry and expansion by other suppliers, and limited the ability of clinics and hospitals to obtain alternative supply conditions for medicinal oxygen. The conduct was found to have affected medical facilities and patients requiring oxygen as part of their treatment. The CNA imposed fines of approximately MXN800 million. In addition, the CNA ordered the companies to 1) cease enforcing exclusivity clauses in existing contracts, 2) refrain from including exclusivity and automatic renewal provisions in future contracts, and 3) appoint a compliance officer and an independent auditor to oversee implementation of the corrective measures and ensure compliance with competition laws. The CNA files a class action to seek compensation for consumers affected by collusion in the LP gas market On April 23, 2026, the CNA announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against 53 liquefied petroleum (LP) gas companies, seeking compensation for consumers affected by a long-running collusive scheme in the distribution of LP gas in Mexico. The case arises from a prior investigation in which the authority identified and sanctioned an illegal agreement among major gas distributors, who allegedly coordinated to manipulate prices and allocate customers across regions such as Mexico City, the State of Mexico, and various localities in Colima, Tamaulipas, and Sinaloa. The CNA reports these practices resulted in overcharges that caused harm to consumers exceeding MXN13 billion. In addition to the administrative fines previously imposed, the CNA is seeking judicial remedies aimed at achieving direct compensation for affected consumers. In particular, the lawsuit requests that the companies be ordered to grant discounts on LP gas prices in the affecting regions.   Peru INDECOPI sanctions an electricity sector company for failure to provide complete information in merger control review. On January 19, 2026, Peru’s National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) sanctioned an electricity sector company with a fine of 1,000 Tax Units (approximately PEN5.5 million) for failing to provide complete, accurate, and truthful information to the authority during the evaluation of a merger control filing. In 2023, the company notified INDECOPI of the proposed acquisition of solar power generation plants. INDECOPI requested documents related to the company’s investment plans or projects in the Peruvian energy sector for the following five years, which the company claimed did not exist. However, INDECOPI later identified internal documents indicating undisclosed investment plans. The decision represents the first sanction imposed for infringements under the current merger control regime. The first administrative resolution has been appealed and is currently pending at the appellate level. United States FTC secures USD10 million settlement with StubHub for deceptive ticket pricing. On April 9, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with StubHub for violating the FTC Act and the Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees. The FTC alleged that StubHub deceptively advertised ticket prices across the first three pricing displays on its website without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price, including all mandatory fees. State enforcers push for parallel remedies proceedings after jury verdict against Live Nation. On April 15, 2026, the jury in United States et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. et al., found that Live Nation and its Ticketmaster unit monopolized ticketing services for large music venues and unlawfully tied venue access to its concert promotion services. This development follows Live Nation entering a mid-trial settlement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) on March 9, 2026, which allowed Live Nation to retain Ticketmaster subject to certain conditions (as reported in our April 2026 issue of Inside Competition). However, state enforcers have deemed the DOJ settlement insufficient and have reportedly indicated their intent to seek a forced sale. State enforcers requested that the court proceed with remedies discovery in parallel with the Tunney Act review. Federal court blocks Nexstar-Tegna merger pending resolution of antitrust suit. On April 17, 2026, US District Court Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley extended an emergency order blocking Nexstar Media Group’s proposed USD6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna while an antitrust lawsuit brought by eight states and DIRECTV proceeds. Although the transaction had received approval from the Federal Communications Commission and DOJ, the merger would result in Nexstar owning 265 television stations across 44 states and the District of Columbia, including two or three “Big Four” local network affiliates in 31 markets. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, finding that the transaction could lead to increased consumer prices, reduced programming quality and access, and diminished local journalism. Nexstar has announced its intent to appeal the ruling, stating that the transaction has received the required regulatory approvals and would expand local journalism.

Written by:Sonia Torres PabónFrancisca FranzaniNereida Melendez-RiveraThe United States Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has designated 15 Ecuador-based individuals and entities and identified ten vessels as blocked property. According to OFAC, the designated parties and vessels are linked to maritime cocaine trafficking networks associated with Los Choneros, Los Lobos, the Sinaloa Cartel, and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).Companies with operations, counterparties, vessels, shipments, financing, insurance, fuel, seafood, logistics, or other business relationships connected to Ecuador or the broader Latin American maritime sector are encouraged to review their sanctions risk in light of the recent OFAC action. Affected companies could face OFAC civil penalties, potential exposure under material support statutes, and civil claims under the US Anti-Terrorism Act. In addition, companies are encouraged to consider updating sanctions screening procedures, conducting enhanced due diligence, and assessing who actually owns or controls their counterparties.In this alert, we discuss the recent OFAC designations and their practical implications for compliance.OverviewOFAC has continued to designate individuals, entities, and criminal organizations linked to terrorism and transnational narcotics trafficking in the Western Hemisphere. Since early 2025, it has taken nearly 30 actions against more than 300 individuals and entities allegedly associated with cartels and transnational criminal organizations.Although the US does not maintain a comprehensive sanctions program specific to Ecuador, OFAC has designated individuals, entities, and property in the country under Executive Orders (EOs) 14059, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” and 13224, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism.” These measures have created sanctions risk in the fishing and maritime sectors, particularly where legitimate businesses may be used to facilitate narcotics trafficking, money laundering, or activities related to Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs). The August 2026 designations underscore the importance of evaluating not only named counterparties but also vessels, intermediaries, beneficial owners, and related commercial networks.Key developmentsAugust 20, 2026: Operation Pacific Viper designationsThe principal designated or identified individuals, entities, and vessels include:Alfonso Mero Mero, his sons, and his family’s company Arcasdenoe, S.A., which OFAC alleges used fishing vessels to transport cocaine from South America to MexicoJulio Javier Mero Franco, who OFAC alleges provided support to Los Choneros and coordinated cocaine shipments from Ecuador to Central America and MexicoJimmy Leonidas Alarcon Holguin, who owns or controls six Ecuadorian fishing-related entitiesTen fishing vessels, including Todos Vuelven, Arca de Noe III, and Conquista, which OFAC alleges supported cocaine-laden go-fast vessels near Manta, EcuadorThese actions were taken as part of Operation Pacific Viper, a US Coast Guard counternarcotics campaign in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and could lead to future designations in the maritime sector.September 4, 2025: Designation of Los Choneros and Los Lobos as FTOs and SDGTsIn September 2025, the US Department of State designated Los Choneros and Los Lobos as FTOs and Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). Those designations could increase the legal and compliance risks associated with transactions involving parties linked to these groups. Beyond OFAC sanctions, providing material support to these organizations could potentially create exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B and civil claims under the US Anti-Terrorism Act.Broader trends in Latin AmericaThe Ecuador-related action is part of a broader regional sanctions trend. Recent OFAC and State Department actions related to CJNG, the Sinaloa Cartel, Brazil’s Primeiro Comando da Capital, and Comando Vermelho may underscore the importance of expanding screening and due diligence beyond Ecuador, particularly where counterparties operate in jurisdictions with an active cartel presence.Legal and compliance implicationsSanctions exposure and blocking obligationsCivil liability for sanctions violations may arise even in the absence of knowledge or intent regarding the prohibited conduct. US persons and companies subject to US jurisdiction are required to block and report property or interests in property of designated persons. This obligation extends to companies owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by one or more blocked persons, even if those companies do not appear separately on OFAC’s list. Although control alone does not trigger OFAC’s 50-Percent Rule, it remains a relevant due diligence consideration.Absent authorization, OFAC generally prohibits US persons and companies subject to US jurisdiction from engaging in transactions involving blocked property or blocked persons. This prohibition can apply to transactions within the US, transactions that transit the US, and dealings involving US persons or US financial institutions.FTO-related risk, material support, and secondary sanctionsRisk is potentially heightened when a designated organization is also an FTO. Criminal or civil exposure may arise if a company knowingly provides material support that benefits the organization. Material support may include money, financial services, transportation, lodging, personnel, or other services. OFAC authorization also does not necessarily eliminate separate criminal or civil risks related to material support for an FTO.Further, foreign financial institutions may face secondary sanctions risk for knowingly conducting or facilitating significant transactions on behalf of persons designated under EO 13224.Sector-specific risk and complianceOFAC’s action demonstrates how seemingly legitimate fishing businesses can be used as logistical platforms for narcotics trafficking networks. Companies that charter vessels, purchase seafood, or provide marine fuel, insurance, trade finance, or logistics linked to Ecuador’s coastal fishing industry may face heightened risk.Recent OFAC enforcement actions, including OFAC’s February 2026 settlement with IMG Academy, reflect the expectation that companies with international operations or relationships screen customers, counterparties, beneficial owners, vessels, and intermediaries.Relevant red flags include complex ownership structures, high-risk jurisdictions, commercially unreasonable terms, involvement of family members or intermediaries, indirect control structures, and evasive responses regarding the role of a blocked person.Practical compliance considerationsCompanies with operations, counterparties, or transactions connected to Ecuador or the broader Latin American maritime sector are encouraged to consider the following risk-based measures:Review and update sanctions screening procedures to incorporate the 15 designated individuals and entities, the ten vessels identified as blocked property, and the associated aliases and vessel identifiers.Conduct enhanced due diligence on Ecuadorian or Ecuador-linked counterparties in the fishing, maritime, fuel, insurance, seafood, logistics, and trade finance sectors, including a review of who actually owns or controls the counterparty.Screen vessels and counterparties during onboarding and relationship renewals, as well as in connection with payments, shipments, claims, and sanctions list updates.Report blocked property to OFAC where appropriate and preserve related records.Assess potential material-support risk involving FTOs before providing funds, goods, services, transportation, fuel, insurance, or logistics in jurisdictions with an active cartel presence.Consider submitting a voluntary self-disclosure to OFAC if potential sanctions violations are identified.Going forwardCompanies are encouraged to monitor OFAC and State Department guidance and enforcement developments, including any general licenses, FAQs, or additional designations related to Ecuador's maritime sector or Operation Pacific Viper, and update screening and escalation protocols accordingly.For more information, please contact the authors. In addition, please see DLA Piper’s National Security and Global Trade practice.