English version:

OPPOSITION AGAINST THE MERGER OF CORPORATIONS IS NOT DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined that the opposition action against mergers resolutions/agreement set forth in Article 224 of the General Law of Corporations, which suspends the merger’s effects, are not unconstitutional, since they do not breach the constitutional right of association established in Article 9 of the Mexican Constitution.

The foregoing, given that, although the opposition action constitutes an act of disturbance that temporarily prevents the merger from taking effect, it is notwithstanding considered to meet the following elements:

• It serves a constitutional purpose by providing legal certainty to the creditors of the merged companies with regard to the credit rights they hold against those companies;
• It is appropriate, as it allows creditors to clarify who will be liable for the debt incurred by the merged entities and under what terms, as well as to ascertain the financial condition of the merging company;
• It is necessary, since it applies only to those creditors whose claims are not fully recognized and secured, given that the completion of the merger could affect their assets and create legal uncertainty regarding the collection of their credit rights; and
• They are proportional, as the impact on the aforementioned Article 9 of the Constitution is not absolute, given that it is temporary and may be remedied through the acknowledgment and guarantee of the merged companies’ debts.

This determination was made through the jurisprudence (case law ruling) with digital record 2032290, published in the Federal Judicial Weekly on June 19^th, 2026.

For any questions or legal assistance regarding corporate mergers and, in general, the incorporation or operation of commercial companies, please contact admin@gplaw.mx.

Versión en español:

OPOSICIÓN A LA FUSIÓN DE SOCIEDADES MERCANTILES, SU EJERCICIO NO ES INCONSTITUCIONAL.

La Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación determinó que las medidas previstas en el artículo 224 de la Ley General de Sociedades Mercantiles, consistentes en la acción de oposición al acuerdo de fusión de sociedades mercantiles y la suspensión de sus efectos, no son inconstitucionales, al no violar el derecho a la asociación consagrado en el artículo Noveno constitucional.

Lo anterior toda vez que, a pesar de que las medidas antes descritas sí constituyen un acto de molestia que impide temporalmente que surta efectos la fusión, se considera que cumplen con los siguientes elementos:

• Persiguen un fin constitucional, al brindar certeza jurídica a los acreedores de las sociedades fusionadas, sobre los derechos de crédito que tengan aquellos frente a estas;
• Son idóneas, toda vez que permite a los acreedores clarificar quién y bajo qué términos se responderá por la deuda constituida por las entidades fusionadas, así como conocer el estado patrimonial de la sociedad fusionante;
• Son necesarias, ya que solo son aplicables a aquellos acreedores cuyos créditos no se encuentren plenamente reconocidos y garantizados, siendo que la ejecución de la fusión podría incidir en su patrimonio y ocasionarles falta de certeza jurídica en el cobro de sus derechos de crédito; y
• Son proporcionales, toda vez que la afectación al citado artículo Noveno constitucional no es absoluta, al ser temporal, y poderse subsanar mediante el reconocimiento y garantía de los adeudos de las sociedades fusionadas.

Dicha determinación se realizó mediante la emisión de la jurisprudencia con registro digital 2032290, publicada en el Semanario Judicial de la Federación el pasado 19 de junio de 2026.

Para cualquier duda o asistencia legal sobre la fusión de sociedades y en general la constitución u operación de sociedades mercantiles, por favor contactar a admin@gplaw.mx.

English version:

OPPOSITION AGAINST THE MERGER OF CORPORATIONS IS NOT DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined that the opposition action against mergers resolutions/agreement set forth in Article 224 of the General Law of Corporations, which suspends the merger’s effects, are not unconstitutional, since they do not breach the constitutional right of association established in Article 9 of the Mexican Constitution.

The foregoing, given that, although the opposition action constitutes an act of disturbance that temporarily prevents the merger from taking effect, it is notwithstanding considered to meet the following elements:

• It serves a constitutional purpose by providing legal certainty to the creditors of the merged companies with regard to the credit rights they hold against those companies;
• It is appropriate, as it allows creditors to clarify who will be liable for the debt incurred by the merged entities and under what terms, as well as to ascertain the financial condition of the merging company;
• It is necessary, since it applies only to those creditors whose claims are not fully recognized and secured, given that the completion of the merger could affect their assets and create legal uncertainty regarding the collection of their credit rights; and
• They are proportional, as the impact on the aforementioned Article 9 of the Constitution is not absolute, given that it is temporary and may be remedied through the acknowledgment and guarantee of the merged companies’ debts.

This determination was made through the jurisprudence (case law ruling) with digital record 2032290, published in the Federal Judicial Weekly on June 19^th, 2026.

For any questions or legal assistance regarding corporate mergers and, in general, the incorporation or operation of commercial companies, please contact admin@gplaw.mx.