A Collegiate Circuit Court held that preventing the execution or continuation of commercial relationships solely because a company has pending litigation against Pemex violates the principles of legality and legal certainty.
On February 27, 2026, non-binding precedent I.10o.A.60 A (11a.), issued by the Tenth Collegiate Court in Administrative Matters of the First Circuit, was published in the Federal Judicial Weekly in connection with Petróleos Mexicanos (“Pemex”) due diligence policies.
The decision found unconstitutional a provision of Pemex’s 2021 Policies and Guidelines for Conducting Due Diligence in Petróleos Mexicanos, its Productive Subsidiary Companies and, where applicable, Affiliates, in matters of Ethics and Corporate Integrity, which allowed Pemex to deny a favorable due diligence opinion when an individual or company had pending litigation against Pemex or its affiliates.
Under that framework, the existence of a claim could prevent the execution or continuation of commercial agreements with Pemex, even where the third party had already been awarded a contract through a procurement process.
The case arose from an international open electronic tender. A company was awarded the contract, but execution remained subject to a favorable due diligence opinion. Pemex issued an adverse determination because the company had pending litigation against Pemex and its affiliates.
The company challenged the decision through constitutional relief proceedings, and the Collegiate Court ultimately held that the restriction violated the constitutional principles of legality and legal certainty.
Among other considerations, the Court found that conditioning the execution of a contract on the absence of litigation against Pemex exceeded the stated purpose of the due diligence policies. Those policies are intended to support informed decisions regarding whether to establish or maintain commercial relationships with third parties and to mitigate related risks; the mere existence of pending litigation was not, by itself, an objective basis for denying contractual viability.
The practical relevance of the decision extends beyond the specific case. Pemex’s 2023 version of the policies retained a similar provision under which pending claims or proceedings against Pemex in Mexico or abroad may negatively affect a due diligence determination.
Although the precedent is non-binding and does not constitute mandatory jurisprudence, it provides a relevant basis for challenging adverse due diligence determinations grounded solely on the existence of pending litigation against Pemex.
For Pemex suppliers, contractors and creditors, the decision may be particularly relevant where the pursuit of judicial or arbitral remedies coincides with procurement processes, contract renewals or the continuation of commercial relationships.
Von Wobeser y Sierra is available to assess the implications of this precedent and to advise on procurement procedures, disputes and defense strategies related to Pemex due diligence policies.
