Mexico

Market Overview
By

Introduction

Mexico stands as one of Latin America’s largest and most dynamic economies, offering a strategic geographical location, abundant natural resources, and a skilled workforce. As the 13th largest economy in the world and the 2nd in Latin America, Mexico offers a strategic location with access to both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, making it a crucial hub for international trade. With a population of over 130 million and proximity to the United States, Mexico is a key player in global trade and a gateway to the Americas. The country’s extensive network of free trade agreements, including the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (“USMCA”), positions it as a competitive destination for international investment. Furthermore, its diverse economy encompasses strong manufacturing, energy, tourism, and agriculture sectors, making it an attractive landscape for foreign businesses.

Despite its potential, doing business in Mexico requires navigating its unique legal, regulatory, and cultural frameworks. Mexico’s legal framework continually evolves to accommodate its growing economy and international partnerships, making it an attractive destination for foreign investors. This article highlights essential aspects for investors, including corporate structures, investment protections, and the impact of recent legal reforms.

Most Common Companies and Foreign Investments

Mexico’s corporate landscape offers various legal entities for conducting business, the most common being the Sociedad Anónima (S.A.) and the Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada (S. de R.L.). The S.A. is akin to a corporation, while the S. de R.L. resembles a limited liability company. The choice between an S.A. and an S. de R.L. depends on the specific goals and needs of the business. An S.A. might be better suited for larger enterprises seeking to attract significant investment. At the same time, an S. de R.L. could be more appropriate for smaller, closely-held businesses prioritizing operational flexibility and control. Both structures offer the benefit of limited liability, protecting shareholders’ assets from business liabilities.

Mexico has implemented a robust legal framework to promote and protect foreign investments. This framework ensures compliance with international standards while fostering a competitive economic environment. This regime balances investor rights with the state’s authority to regulate its economy.

(i) Investment Protection and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Regime

Investment protection in Mexico is primarily derived from its extensive international treaties, such as the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), and free trade frameworks, such as the already mentioned United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). These agreements typically include provisions for non-discrimination, fair and equitable treatment, protection from expropriation without compensation, and access to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms.

At the domestic level, the Foreign Investment Law (Ley de Inversión Extranjera) ensures that foreign investors enjoy equal treatment as nationals in most sectors, with specific exceptions outlined under the law.

In this regard, even though Mexico welcomes FDI across various sectors, there are certain industries that remain restricted or regulated for national security or strategic interests. Foreign ownership limitations exist in areas such as energy, telecommunications, and aviation. For instance, specific sectors, such as oil exploration or radio broadcasting, have historically been reserved for the state or limited to a capped percentage of foreign ownership.

Mexico’s FDI regime provides that transactions in certain industries and those resulting in foreign capital acquiring over 49% of Mexican entities with high asset value require the authorization of the National Commission of Foreign Investments, which looks into the transactions’s labor, environmental, economic and scientific impact.

Further, Mexico has established mechanisms, including, under the National Registry of Foreign Investments (Registro Nacional de Inversiones Extranjeras, RNIE) to facilitate and track FDI, which oversees compliance and reporting requirements for foreign investors. Additionally, reforms in the energy and infrastructure sectors have attracted significant FDI, opening previously restricted areas to private and foreign participation.

These efforts have contributed to Mexico’s position as a leading recipient of FDI in Latin America.

(ii) Antitrust Regulations

Currently, the Federal Economic Competition Law governs Mexico’s antitrust framework (Ley Federal de Competencia Económica), enforced by the Federal Economic Competition Commission (COFECE) and the Federal Teñecommjnicayions Institute (IFT).

COFECE and the IFT are autonomous authorities that promote free competition and prevents monopolistic practices. The law prohibits abuse of market dominance, cartels, and other anti-competitive behavior. Companies considering mergers or acquisitions that meet certain thresholds must also notify COFECE (or the IFT, if the transaction involves the telecommunications or broadcasting industries) for approval to ensure they do not harm market competition.

In December 2024, Mexico enacted a significant constitutional amendment aimed at streamlining government agencies, which directly impacts the country’s antitrust regulatory framework. This reform involves the dissolution of COFECE and the IFT, with their responsibilities being consolidated into a single economic competition authority under the Ministry of Economy (Secretaría de Economía). This new body will possess its own assets, and operate with technical and operational independence. However, this new period also brings certain level of uncertainty and some transition challenges, since there is also a risk that increased political oversight under the Ministry of Economy might introduce delays or affect transparency. Therefore, it will be important to monitor how effectively this consolidated authority addresses antitrust approval procedures.

The reform mandates the Mexican congress to develop secondary laws on competition, free market access, telecommunications, and broadcasting and to define the structure and powers of the new authority, but fails to set a deadline for this to happen. COFECE and the IFT will disappear 180 after the enacting of the new antitrust statute. During this transitional period, COFECE and IFT will continue their operations until the new framework enters into force.

Investment Opportunities: Main Sectors and Key Investors

Mexico presents vast opportunities for investment across several sectors:

  1. Energy. Despite recent reforms to strengthen state control, private investment in renewable energy and oil and gas remains significant. In particular, Mexico’s solar and wind energy potential has attracted global players seeking to develop sustainable projects.
  2. Manufacturing. As a hub for automotive and aerospace industries, Mexico benefits from nearshoring trends and advanced industrial parks. The USMCA has further boosted the competitiveness of Mexican manufacturing by ensuring stable trade conditions with the United States and Canada.
  3. Technology. The country’s growing digital economy and startup ecosystem attract venture capital and innovation-focused investors. Initiatives such as fintech regulations and support for tech incubators highlight Mexico’s commitment to fostering technological growth.

Key investors in Mexico include the United States, Canada, and Spain, driven by proximity, trade agreements, and historical ties. China has also emerged as a significant player in infrastructure and technology projects.

Trends in Capital: Mexico-Spain Interconnection

The historical, cultural, and economic ties between Mexico and Spain have fostered a robust bilateral relationship, making Spain one of Mexico’s most significant foreign investors. Spain consistently ranks among the top foreign direct investors in Mexico. According to recent data, Spanish companies account for over 12% of total FDI inflows to Mexico, positioning Spain as the second-largest European investor after the Netherlands. This relationship is particularly evident in the energy, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors, where Spanish companies like Iberdrola, Telefónica, and Acciona have a strong presence. Likewise, Mexican multinationals are expanding into Spain, particularly in the food and beverage, cement, and telecommunications sectors (e.g. Grupo Bimbo, Cemex, and Grupo Carso).

Below are a few examples of the role of Spanish companies in Mexico:

  1. As for the energy sector, Spanish companies have played a significant role in Mexico’s renewable energy sector. Firms like Iberdrola, Acciona, and Naturgy have been instrumental in developing wind and solar energy projects nationwide. The 2013 Energy Reform opened opportunities for Spanish energy companies to participate in electricity generation and transmission projects. However, the recent policy shifts under Mexico’s current administration, prioritizing state-owned companies like CFE and PEMEX, have raised concerns about regulatory changes and contract uncertainty among these investors. In this regard, if the new administration is willing to adopt greener policies, this would benefit the Spanish companies in Mexico.
  2. As for banking and financial services, Spanish banks such as BBVA and Santander dominate Mexico’s financial services landscape. In fact, BBVA Mexico is the largest bank in Mexico, controlling a significant market share. These institutions have been critical in financing infrastructure projects and providing financial services to Mexican consumers and businesses.
  3. As for the infrastructure sector, Spanish companies have also actively participated in large-scale infrastructure projects in Mexico. ACS Group, Ferrovial, and FCC have been involved in highway construction, airport development, and other critical projects.

Energy Reform and Trends in the Energy Sector

Mexico’s energy sector has undergone significant transformations in recent years, primarily driven by legal reforms to reshape the industry’s regulatory framework. These reforms, initiated under the 2013 Energy Reform and further influenced by recent administrations, have profoundly impacted domestic and foreign investment in the sector.

The 2013 Energy Reform opened the oil, gas, and electricity markets to private investment for the first time in decades, ending a 75-year monopoly held by state-owned companies Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) and CFE (Comisión Federal de Electricidad). This reform encouraged FDI and introduced mechanisms such as production-sharing contracts, joint ventures, and competitive electricity markets. It aimed to boost efficiency, foster competition, and attract cutting-edge technology to enhance exploration, production, and distribution capabilities.

However, the legal landscape shifted significantly under President Lopez Obrador’s administration and will continue to change during President Sheinbaum’s term. The government has pursued an agenda focused on energy sovereignty, rolling back some key aspects of the previous reforms. The most notable proposal, colloquially called the “Energy Counter-Reform,” seeks to strengthen PEMEX and CFE by prioritizing their roles in the energy market and limiting private-sector participation.

On February 26, 2025, the Mexican Senate approved an energy reform that strengthens the dominant role of Pemex and CFE while allowing limited private sector participation. The goal is to achieve energy self-sufficiency in Mexico. The reform passed with 85 votes in favor, 39 against, and one abstention, and will now move to the Chamber of Deputies for final approval.

(i) Pemex’s increased role

Pemex gains more autonomy and preferential conditions to collaborate with private companies in investment projects while maintaining control over them.

(ii) CFE’s market dominance

The CFE must generate at least 54% of Mexico's electricity, prioritizing its supply in the power grid. The system must operate under reliability and continuity principles, promoting a transition to renewable energy.

(iii) State-controlled energy sector

This reform is part of President Sheinbaum’s broader energy policy, aligning secondary laws with constitutional changes made in October 2024. Pemex and CFE will be reclassified as public state-owned companies rather than productive state enterprises, shifting the focus from profitability to social benefit.

(iv) Dissolution of independent regulators

The Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE) and the National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH) will be eliminated. Their responsibilities will be transferred to the newly created National Energy Commission (CNE), which will be under the direct control of the Ministry of Energy.

(v) Private sector participation

Private companies will still be allowed in power generation but under stricter regulations, ensuring the CFE maintains a majority stake in the sector. Specific models for distributed generation and self-supply will be introduced, with capacity limits and simplified permitting processes.

Other Recent Legal Reforms in Mexico

(i) Judicial

The judicial reform in Mexico has introduced a controversial proposal related to the concept of “voto popular” (popular vote), which aims to increase democratic participation in the judiciary. Under this approach, certain high-level judicial positions, including Supreme Court justices and electoral tribunal judges, would be elected directly by citizens rather than appointed through the current process, which involves nominations by the president and approval by the Senate.

The reform is intended to make the judiciary more accountable to the public and reduce perceived elitism or political bias in judicial appointments. Proponents argue that it democratizes the justice system, giving citizens a direct role in shaping it. In fact, part of the justification for the reform is to grant legitimacy to judges through popular vote. However, critics warn that “voto popular” could politicize the judiciary, undermining its independence and impartiality, as judicial candidates might feel pressured to campaign and make decisions based on public opinion or political interests rather than the rule of law. This aspect of the reform has sparked significant debate, with concerns about its long-term implications for judicial autonomy in Mexico.

Lastly, this judicial reform has already changed the way the “jurisdiction” clause is negotiated in M&A deals and, more generally, in legal contracts. Arbitration or a jurisdiction outside of Mexico will generally prevail as the dispute resolution mechanism for transactions with a nexus to Mexico, primarily due to the legal uncertainty introduced by this reform.

(ii) Labor

Mexico’s labor reform introduced significant changes, including the implementation of independent labor courts and a shift toward collective bargaining. Unlike the United States, employment in Mexico is not “at will,” offering workers greater job security and limiting unjustified dismissals. Employers must also navigate stricter compliance requirements related to outsourcing and workplace equality, reflecting the government’s focus on improving labor standards.

(iii) Tax

Mexico’s tax regime includes corporate income tax at 30% and a value-added tax (VAT) of 16%. Recent measures focus on combating tax evasion and implementing stricter reporting obligations for multinational enterprises under OECD guidelines. Additionally, tax incentives are available for companies investing in priority sectors such as renewable energy and technology, further encouraging economic growth.

Potential U.S. Tariffs

​In February 2025, President Donald Trump announced a 25% tariff on all imports from Mexico, citing concerns over illegal immigration and drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl. These tariffs were initially set to take effect on February 4 but were postponed to March 4 following negotiations with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who agreed to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops to the northern border and extradite cartel leaders to the U.S. Despite these efforts, the tariffs were implemented on March 4, prompting Mexico to prepare retaliatory measures. Subsequently, the U.S. granted a one-month reprieve for goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), delaying tariffs on these products until April 2. This ongoing trade tension has raised concerns about potential economic impacts on both countries, including disruptions to supply chains and increased consumer prices.

Final Remarks and Challenges Ahead

Mexico’s strategic advantages and economic potential make it a compelling destination for foreign investors. However, challenges remain, including regulatory uncertainty, corruption, and security concerns. Investors must stay informed about legal developments and engage local experts to navigate these complexities effectively.

As Mexico continues to adapt to global economic trends and implement structural reforms, opportunities abound for those prepared to embrace its dynamic business environment. The country’s resilience and adaptability ensure its place as a key player in the international investment landscape.

Addressing issues such as infrastructure gaps, environmental sustainability, and workforce development will be crucial for maintaining Mexico’s competitive edge. Businesses can thrive in this vibrant and evolving market with the right strategies and partnerships.

Firms in the Spotlight
Comparative Guides
ViewView
News & Developments
ViewView
Environment & Tax

ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES IN MEXICO: REGULATION, CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES, AND THEIR IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY

Environmental taxes are a key fiscal tool in Mexico to reduce ecological damage and promote sustainable practices. Their implementation helps to discourage polluting activities, generate revenue for environmental protection, and foster an economic development aligned with the conservation of natural resources. In recent years, their regulation at the state level has evolved to strengthen environmental responsibility. However, their implementation currently faces legal challenges, in which the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has played a fundamental role in ensuring that their design complies with the principles of proportionality and tax equity. INTRODUCTION Among public policy tools aimed at fostering environmental protection, environmental taxes stand out as a mechanism designed to discourage the use of unsustainable technology and penalize polluting activities, while generating income that can be allocated to ecological conservation and restoration initiatives. In Mexico, at both federal and state levels, there are various tax regulations addressing activities with a high environmental impact. This article explores the role of environmental taxes in the various federal entities in relation to the Supreme Court rulings on the constitutionality of such taxes, with the aim of understanding their legitimacy framework. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES Article 31, section IV of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States establishes the obligation of Mexicans to contribute to public expenses—at the federal, state, and municipal levels—proportionally and equitably, according to their economic capabilities. This contribution is primarily carried out through the payment of taxes established in laws, which are used to finance public services, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other government functions. Thus, the principles of proportionality and tax equity seek to ensure that each person contributes according to their income and capabilities, promoting a fair system. Following this rationale, environmental taxes are levies imposed on activities that generate a negative impact on the environment, functioning as fiscal instruments that allow the correction of adverse environmental impacts, discourage harmful behavior, and encourage the adoption of more sustainable technologies and products. Their purpose is to shift the cost of environmental externalities (such as air, water, or soil pollution) to those who cause them, so that the responsible parties pay for the damage they inflict on the natural environment and are incentivized to change their technology or activities that harm it. AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL ENTITIES TO LEGISLATE ON THE MATTER To regulate tax matters, Article 73, section XXIX of the Mexican Constitution grants the exclusive authority to the Congress of the Union to determine various taxes. Article 115 establishes that municipalities will freely manage their finances, which are composed of revenues from assets they own, as well as taxes and income determined in their favor by state legislatures. Meanwhile, Articles 117 and 118 set forth the prohibitions for federal entities. From these provisions, it follows that each level of government, within its respective jurisdiction, is authorized to define the necessary taxes to cover the expenditures established in its budget, provided these are not expressly exclusive to the federation, prohibited to federal entities, or reserved for them. In this regard, state-level regulation of environmental taxes in Mexico has undergone significant evolution in recent decades, reflecting growing concern for environmental protection and the need to fund ecological initiatives at the local level. Environmental taxes have progressively evolved across different states. Currently, 18 states have active environmental taxes, while others have proposed new tax initiatives in this area. For example, on October 29, 2024, Coahuila proposed a bill to tax direct emissions from fixed sources of CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF₆, with a rate of 4.5 UMA per ton of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e). On December 5, 2024, Tabasco introduced a bill to tax the following: natural resource extraction; waste disposal, confinement, and storage; water pollution emissions; soil/subsoil pollution emissions; and gas emissions to the atmosphere. SUPREME COURT CRITERIA ON ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES Although the Mexican Constitution grants states a degree of authority to legislate on tax matters, the division of powers between the federation and states remains a point of contention. The Supreme Court has ruled on several environmental taxes, sometimes upholding their constitutionality when they regulate local matters, and other times declaring them unconstitutional when they infringe upon the exclusive powers of the Congress of the Union. The Supreme Court has maintained that the taxable event must be linked to the polluting conduct or the environmental issue being addressed. The tax base must relate to any act capable of causing ecological harm, aiming at remediation and promoting cleaner production processes.[1] It also established that contributory capacity is evidenced not only by the mere possession or exchange of wealth but also by the economic benefit derived from environmental goods. Therefore, a causal relationship must exist between the taxable event and the physical units determining environmental damage, with a reasonable correlation reflected in the tax base.[2] The Court has also noted the lack of a clear boundary between federal and local jurisdictions in many cases[3], due to a failure to systematically interpret Articles 73 (sections VII and XXIX), 117, 118, and 124 of the Mexican Constitution, which delineate tax jurisdiction. Amparo en revisión 1071/2018 In this case, the Supreme Court analyzed environmental taxes in Zacatecas’ State Revenue Law. It ruled that Articles 8 to 13 were unconstitutional as they violated the exclusive federal power under Article 73, section XXIX(2), since environmental remediation taxes on material extraction fall solely under congressional authority. However, regarding Articles 28 to 34 (taxes on waste storage), the Supreme Court found them to violate the principle of proportionality, as the tax was calculated solely on the volume of waste stored, without considering the actual environmental impact. It failed to distinguish between reusable and non-reusable materials or take into account co-processing in other industrial applications. Also, Article 24, paragraphs 2 and 3, taxed additional pollution units at the same rate as complete units, disregarding pollution concentration levels and thus violating proportionality. Nevertheless, the Court upheld Articles 14 to 34 in terms of jurisdiction, stating: The tax on atmospheric emissions does not involve national airspace exploitation (Articles 27, 42, 48 Mexican Constitution do not apply). Taxes on discharges into soil, subsoil, and water involve state-jurisdiction waters and do not constitute resource exploitation, so regulation is shared. Waste storage taxes apply to landfills within the state and do not interfere with federal powers. Thus, the Supreme Court recognized these taxes as proportionate, as they acknowledge the environmental harm caused by such activities. Constitutional controversy 119/2020 In this case, the Supreme Court declared the invalidity of Articles 133–137 of the Baja California State Revenue Law, which created a tax on gas emissions. It found the local legislator had overstepped into the federation’s exclusive power to tax hydrocarbons (Article 73, section XXIX(5)(c) Mexican Constitution). Though Baja California claimed the tax was ecological, it was applied to the volume of gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and LP gas sold to consumers, not to actual emissions. The Supreme Court therefore invalidated the tax for encroaching on federal jurisdiction. CONCLUSION State regulation of environmental taxes in Mexico has evolved to foster environmental protection and sustainable development. These fiscal tools serve to mitigate negative environmental impacts, discourage harmful behaviors, and promote cleaner technologies, while also funding environmental remediation. Nonetheless, implementation has sparked constitutional challenges, particularly regarding states’ taxing authority and the principles of proportionality and equity. The Supreme Court has played a key role in defining the validity of such taxes, establishing that their application must: Fall within state jurisdiction, without infringing federal powers;[4] Be directly linked to polluting activities, with a tax base tied to emissions or contamination rather than indirect factors;[5] Fulfill the principle of proportionality, reflecting the extent of environmental damage and taxpayer capacity.[6] Despite these challenges, environmental taxes remain relevant for Mexico’s environmental policy. For them to be effective tools, they must be designed with sound technical criteria, comply with constitutional principles, and ensure that collected revenues are genuinely used for environmental protection. In a context where federal entities seek to strengthen their tax collection, local governments have turned to environmental taxes as a fiscal tool that also aims to protect the environment. At Lammoglia Abogados, we offer specialized advisory services to evaluate the applicability of these taxes under current legal frameworks, identify whether companies engage in taxed activities or are located in obligated jurisdictions, detect opportunities, and define specific obligations. We also design tailored compliance plans and, if necessary, provide legal defense and litigation support to avoid undue sanctions or recover improperly paid amounts. In case of any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact us. Fernanda Garibay Carrillo [email protected] Rocío Toriz Colín [email protected] [1] From that amparo en revisión arose jurisprudence 2a./J. 54/2020 (10a.), registration number 2022288, under the title: "ECOLOGICAL OR COST-EFFICIENT TAXES. THEIR CALCULATION DESIGN INCLUDES A PUBLIC DUTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, WHICH DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM OTHER NON-FISCAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS." [2] From that amparo en revisión arose jurisprudence 2a./J. 55/2020 (10a.), registration number 2022285, under the title: "ECOLOGICAL OR COST-EFFICIENT TAXES. PARAMETERS FOR ANALYZING THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF TAX PROPORTIONALITY." [3] This has been upheld in jurisprudence from the 7th Era; Plenary; S.J.F.; Volume 151–156, Part One; page 149, registration number 232505, under the title: "TAXES. CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM REGARDING TAX MATTERS. JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERATION AND THE FEDERAL ENTITIES TO ENACT THEM." [4] This issue was resolved in the judgment of constitutional controversy 119/2020, decided by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. [5] This issue was resolved in the judgment of constitutional controversy 119/2020, decided by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. [6] This issue was resolved in the judgment of amparo en revisión 1071/2018, decided by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.
Lammoglia Abogados - July 14 2025
Press Releases

Lammoglia Abogados Welcomes Rodrigo Juárez Castañeda to Lead New Antitrust and TMT Practice

Mexico City – Lammoglia Abogados is pleased to announce the addition of Rodrigo Juárez Castañeda as Of Counsel. Rodrigo will lead the newly created Antitrust and Technology, Media and Telecommunications (TMT) practice areas. His arrival marks a significant milestone in our commitment to offering innovative legal solutions in these dynamic fields. Rodrigo Juárez boasts a remarkable track record in both public and private sectors, particularly in telecommunications and economic competition, including having served as head of Monopolistic Practices and Unlawful Concentrations investigations in the Investigative Authority of the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT). His strategic vision and leadership have been instrumental in shaping regulatory practices, so we are excited to bring this expertise to our clients. Rodrigo holds an LLB from Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE, 2008) and an LLM from London School of Economics (LSE, 2012). His academic credentials include prestigious institutions such as Barcelona School of Economics and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. This solid educational foundation, combined with his extensive experience, supports the launch of the Antitrust and TMT practice under his guidance, allowing us to offer bespoke legal strategies that address the unique challenges faced by our clients. In this way, the firm expands its service portfolio to encompass strategic advice and legal representation in economic competition, technology, media, telecommunications, as well as related fields such as intellectual property, privacy, consumer protection and e-commerce. At Lammoglia Abogados, we are dedicated to advancing our clients' interests with cutting-edge legal solutions. Rodrigo's expertise will be invaluable as we expand our service offerings and reinforce our position in antitrust and telecommunications law.
Lammoglia Abogados - July 4 2025
Press Releases

New Partners Announcement 2022

We are pleased to announce the following lawyers as new partners of our firm: HÉCTOR CÁRDENAS ORTEGA Héctor joined the firm in 2010. He has vast experience in mergers and acquisitions, advising buyers (both financial and strategic), sellers and financial advisors in sale processes of businesses and assets in a variety of sectors (food and beverage, educational services, technology, and automotive, entertainment and financial services, among others), including acquisitions through tender offers, leveraged acquisitions and reorganizations, with special emphasis on advising private equity funds in their structuring, as well as in acquisitions and divestments of businesses and assets. As to his real estate experience, Héctor is particularly active in transactions involving the structuring of private equity real estate funds, as well as in the acquisition and sale of real estate properties and developments, working for both investors and developers. Héctor worked as a Foreign Associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York, NY (2015-2016). SANTIAGO CARRILLO CATTORI Santiago joined the firm in 2011. He actively participates in complex transactions involving financings, acquisitions and developments across all real estate asset classes, including industrial and hotel assets, representing domestic and foreign financial institutions, private equity firms and developers. He also advises domestic and international lenders in structuring credit facilities for Mexican public and private companies, particularly in structured lending transactions. Santiago worked as a Foreign Associate in the Banking & Finance practice area at Mayer Brown, in Chicago, IL. ADRIANA PADILLA RIVAS Adriana joined the firm in 2015. She has more than 14 years of experience and has participated in several commercial and investment arbitrations, both as counsel and arbitrator, under the rules of several institutions such as ICC, LCIA, AAA-ICDR, ICSID, CANACO, CAM and others. She has extensive experience in dispute resolution in many fields such as M&A, infrastructure, energy, port, construction, retail and corporate, subject either to Mexican, international or foreign law. She also has extensive experience in litigation related to arbitration, including judicial proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of awards and interim measures in arbitration. In addition, she has participated in multiple financial restructurings and insolvency proceedings, advising both companies and creditors, and also acted as counsel to the receiver. Adriana worked as a Foreign Associate in Cleary Gottlieb, in New York, NY (2014-2015). JUAN JOSÉ PAULLADA EGUIRAO Juan José joined the firm in 2017. He has more than 14 years of experience advising multinationals from the energy, real estate, private equity, banking and financial sectors in tax controversy and tax advisory matters. He specializes in representing clients throughout controversy processes before tax and other governmental authorities, regulators and the Taxpayers’ Defense office, to reduce or eliminate contingencies derived from tax audits and other administrative inspections. He has particular experience in advising multinationals on cross-border transactions, confronting complex international tax issues in the application of double taxation treaties. Juan José was a member of Ernst & Young’s international Tax Advisory practice in New York (2014-2016) and Houston (2016-2017).
Ritch, Mueller y Nicolau, S.C. - January 19 2022
Projects, Energy and Infrastructure

Representation of Mexico Infrastructure Partners (EXI)

Represented Mexico Infrastructure Partners (EXI), in the structuring of a new Fibra-E named Fibra EXI, as well as Fibra EXI in the issuance of MXN$22,159 million CBFEs, placed in the Mexican Stock Exchange through an initial public offer and distribution to investors of EXI Funds. Press coverage of the matter can be found here: https://www.bbva.com/es/mx/bbva-mexico-actuo-como-estructurador-e-intermediario-colocador-lider-de-la-fibra-e-de-exi-con-una-oferta-primaria-de-3505-millones-de-pesos/ https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/dario-celis/2021/07/30/proximo-lunes-al-mercado-fibra-exi-con-21-mmdp/ https://expansion.mx/mercados/2021/07/30/fexi-fibra-e-bolsa-mexicana
Ritch, Mueller y Nicolau, S.C. - August 13 2021