Latin America Insights | Legal Updates and Developments in Major Sectors in LATAM Region- July 2026

(Joint review: July 1st, 2026 , bilateral round: July 21-23, 2026)

On July 1, 2026, Mexico, the United States and Canada conducted the first mandatory joint review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA / T-MEC) under Article 34.7. Mexico and Canada supported extending the Agreement for a new 16-year term, while the United States declined to renew the USMCA in its current form. The decision does not terminate or suspend the Agreement, which remains in force until July 1, 2036 unless the parties subsequently agree to extend its term or a party separately exercises the withdrawal mechanism under Article 34.6. Because no unanimous extension was agreed, the parties must now conduct annual joint reviews.

The review process continued through bilateral U.S.-Mexico negotiations held in Mexico City from July 21 to 23. Discussions covered economic security, labor, agriculture, electronic payment services, steel and aluminum and derivative products, and automobiles. Both governments emphasized strengthening North American manufacturing and regional supply chains and addressing free-riding by non-parties, while Mexico reported progress on strengthening regional value chains and substituting certain imports from Asia. Earlier negotiating rounds had also addressed rules of origin and limiting non-market inputs in North American supply chains.

Key Elements

• Annual review process, but no automatic amendment of the treaty:Under Article 34.7, the absence of unanimous support for an extension triggers annual joint reviews for the remainder of the current term. Any substantive amendment to the USMCA, however, remains subject to separate agreement by the parties and their applicable domestic legal procedures under Article 34.3.
• Economic security and third-country inputs are becoming central issues:U.S.-Mexico discussions have increasingly focused on ensuring that USMCA benefits accrue primarily to the parties, strengthening regional supply chains and reducing dependence on non-market or non-regional inputs. These policies are particularly relevant to supply chains involving Chinese-origin components, although no China-specific USMCA restriction was adopted in July.
• Rules of origin and strategic sectors remain under negotiation:Previous bilateral rounds addressed rules of origin for industrial goods, while the July round focused particularly on automobiles, steel and aluminum, economic security and other strategic sectors. No new regional-value-content thresholds or amendments to existing USMCA rules of origin were announced during July.
• No immediate change to existing USMCA benefits:The July review did not itself modify tariff preferences or other existing treaty disciplines. Companies may continue operating under the current USMCA framework while the annual review and bilateral negotiation processes continue.

Practical Implications

• Companies exporting from Mexico under USMCA preferences should verify regional-value-content calculations, bills of materials, supplier declarations and other supporting records, particularly in sectors exposed to future changes in rules of origin or increased verification activity.
• Chinese-invested manufacturers and other companies relying materially on Asian components should identify critical non-North-American inputs and assess feasible regional sourcing alternatives, especially in automotive, electronics, steel, aluminum and other strategic manufacturing sectors
• Chinese ownership does not, as a result of the July review, itself eliminate USMCA preferential treatment. However, Chinese-invested groups should separately monitor future economic-security, export-control and foreign-investment measures that may emerge alongside the treaty negotiations. The July negotiations did not announce a CFIUS-style screening mechanism for Mexico.
• Companies planning long-term investments or supply arrangements should monitor the annual joint reviews and the bilateral negotiating process and consider appropriate contractual protections for future tariff, origin or regulatory changes. The United States and Mexico have already agreed to hold a fourth bilateral negotiating round in Washington, D.C. in September 2026.
  
  

(Published: July 31, 2026)

On July 31, 2026, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service (Receita Federal do Brasil, or “RFB”) and the Management Committee for the Tax on Goods and Services (Comitê Gestor do Imposto sobre Bens e Serviços, or “CGIBS”) published Joint Act No. 4/2026 (Ato Conjunto RFB/CGIBS nº 4/2026), formally establishing the mandatory implementation schedule for various electronic tax documents relating to the Tax on Goods and Services (Imposto sobre Bens e Serviços, or “IBS”) and the Contribution on Goods and Services (Contribuição sobre Bens e Serviços, or “CBS”). The Joint Act was issued pursuant to the implementing regulations for the IBS and CBS and provides for phased implementation dates based on different types of transactions and industries.

Under the new schedule, major electronic tax documents, including the Electronic Invoice (NF-e), Electronic Consumer Invoice (NFC-e), Electronic Transportation Document (CT-e) and Electronic Electricity Invoice (NF3e), will become subject to the new requirements from August 3, 2026. Certain other documents, including the Electronic Service Invoice (NFS-e), will be implemented in phases in October or December 2026, while taxpayers under the Simples Nacional simplified tax regime will generally become subject to the relevant requirements from January 1, 2027.

Key Elements

• Major electronic tax documents become mandatory from August 3: Under Joint Act No. 4/2026, the NF-e, NFC-e, CT-e, CT-e OS, NF3e and certain other electronic transportation and road service documents will become subject to the new IBS/CBS electronic document requirements from August 3, 2026. The relevant technical specifications have been published, and companies will need to adjust their invoicing systems to comply with the new tax framework.
• Phased implementation for services and specific industries: The Electronic Service Invoice (NFS-e) and Electronic Communications Invoice (NFCom) are generally scheduled to become mandatory from October 1, 2026. Electronic documents relating to digital platforms, certain specific services, real estate transactions, water supply, gas and certain special NFS-e categories are generally scheduled to apply from December 1, 2026, providing additional preparation time for affected industries.
• Simples Nacional taxpayers and certain import transactions deferred until 2027: Electronic tax document requirements for taxpayers subject to the Simples Nacional regime, as well as the Single Import Declaration (Duimp), import-related NF-e and certain other import documents, will generally become mandatory from January 1, 2027. This reflects the phased transition adopted under Brazil’s consumption tax reform for different categories of taxpayers and transactions.
• Technical specifications and compliance transition mechanisms: For electronic tax documents whose technical standards have not yet been finalized, the RFB and CGIBS have provided for the publication of the relevant technical specifications at a later stage and plan to establish a compliance program for 2026. Taxpayers that actively cooperate and comply with ancillary obligations may be given additional time to correct deficiencies under this guidance-oriented transition mechanism.

Practical Implications

• Companies should identify the electronic tax documents applicable to their business activities and the corresponding mandatory implementation dates and should promptly complete the configuration and testing of IBS/CBS fields, tax rates and transaction data within their ERP, invoicing, finance and tax systems to avoid disruptions to invoicing and ordinary business operations.
• Companies in retail, manufacturing, logistics, energy and other sectors included in the first implementation phase from August 2026 should prioritize system upgrades. Businesses in services, digital platforms, real estate, water supply and gas that are subject to later implementation dates should also use the transition period to adjust their data structures, business processes and tax classifications.
• Multinational companies and foreign investors with subsidiaries in Brazil should strengthen coordination among tax, finance, IT and business teams and review product and service classifications, transaction characteristics and electronic tax document data. Importantly, 2026 remains a testing and transition year for the IBS and CBS. Taxpayers that issue the required electronic tax documents and comply with the applicable reporting obligations may, under the current transition rules, be exempt from effectively paying the IBS and CBS during the testing phase.

MME Regulates Compensation for Wind and Solar Curtailment

(Published: July 21, 2026)

On July 21, 2026, Brazil’s Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) published Normative Ordinance No. 140/2026, establishing the procedures for compensating wind and solar photovoltaic generators for eligible generation curtailment events occurring between September 1, 2023 and November 25, 2025. The Ordinance implements Article 1-B of Law No. 10,848/2004, as amended by Law No. 15,269/2025, and entered into force on the date of publication.

The Ordinance operationalizes the statutory compensation mechanism through a Commitment Agreement with the Federal Government. Participation is subject to detailed ONS and CCEE verification and re-accounting procedures and, critically, requires generators to waive administrative, arbitral and judicial claims relating to generation curtailment events occurring through November 25, 2025.

Key Elements

• Eligible plants and curtailment events:The mechanism applies to authorized wind and photovoltaic plants connected to the Basic Grid or Other Transmission Facilities (DITs) within the National Interconnected System (SIN). Compensation is limited to curtailment caused by external facility unavailability or electrical-reliability requirements. Curtailment resulting from energy oversupply is expressly excluded.
• Compensation through financial re-accounting:Eligible curtailed energy allocated to regulated-market energy contracts (CCEAR-D) and Reserve Energy Contracts (CER) is treated as energy delivered, reducing contractual reimbursements for non-delivery. Eligible energy not committed under those contracts is generally valued at the Settlement Price for Differences (PLD) of the relevant submarket, while Proinfa plants are compensated at the applicable contractual price.
• Payment and monetary adjustment:The CCEE will implement compensation through the financial re-accounting of past events, with amounts adjusted by the IPCA from the date of each curtailment event until payment. Re-accounting must be completed within 180 days from the first business day following the final deadline for execution of the Commitment Agreements.
• Broad waiver of claims:Execution of the Commitment Agreement is irrevocable and entails waiver of the right to pursue administrative, arbitral or judicial claims concerning curtailment events through November 25, 2025, including discontinuance of pending proceedings and relinquishment of judicial relief preventing the collection of CER and CCEAR reimbursements.
• Physical-guarantee treatment:Curtailment volumes occurring during the covered period, whether compensable or not, must be treated as verified generation for purposes of the annual review of wind and solar plants’ physical guarantees, subject to a methodology to be subsequently established by the MME.

Practical Implications

• Chinese investors holding or financing wind and solar assets in Brazil should quantify eligible historical curtailment by plant and determine the potential compensation available under the new framework.
• Participation requires a broad and irrevocable waiver of existing and future claims relating to the covered period. Generators should therefore compare the expected net compensation with the value, cost and prospects of pending or potential litigation before executing the Commitment Agreement.
• Because oversupply events are excluded, generators should verify the ONS classification of historical curtailment and the underlying anemometric, solarimetric, generation and availability data. The Ordinance provides specific procedural opportunities to submit updated information and challenge the resulting calculations.
• The CCEE must adopt adapted trading rules and procedures, while further MME methodology remains necessary for the physical-guarantee treatment. Investors should monitor these measures when assessing the timing and final value of compensation.

Brazil Initiates Anti-Dumping Investigation into Welded Carbon Steel Pipes from China

On July 6, 2026, the Secretariat of Foreign Trade of Brazil’s Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services (Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços/Secretaria de Comércio Exterior) published Notice No. 51 of 2026, initiating an anti-dumping investigation into imports of welded carbon steel pipes (Portuguese: tubos de condução soldados) originating in China. The products under investigation are classified under Mercosur Common Nomenclature (NCM) codes 7305.11.00, 7305.12.00, 7305.19.00, 7305.31.00, 7305.39.00, 7306.19.00 and 7306.30.00. The period of investigation for dumping is from July 2024 to June 2025, while the period of investigation for injury is from July 2020 to June 2025. The Notice entered into force on the date of its publication.

Chinese companies should actively cooperate with the investigation and highlight the differences among welded carbon steel pipes with different diameters, wall thicknesses, steel grades and uses, with a view to narrowing the scope of the products under investigation. They may also present arguments on injury and causation based on export prices, market competition and the operating conditions of the Brazilian domestic industry, in order to seek a lower anti-dumping duty. It is advisable to engage legal counsel to assist with the investigation.

Brazil Initiates Anti-Dumping Investigation into Sorbitol from China

On July 9, 2026, the Secretariat of Foreign Trade (Secretaria de Comércio Exterior) of Brazil’s Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services (Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços) published Notice No. 56 of 2026, initiating an anti-dumping investigation into sorbitol (Portuguese: sorbitol líquido e cristalino) originating in China and India, following an application filed by the Brazilian company Ingredion Brasil Ingredientes Industriais Ltda. The products under investigation are classified under MERCOSUR Common Nomenclature (NCM) codes 2905.44.00 and 3824.60.00. The period of investigation for dumping is from July 2024 to June 2025, while the injury investigation period is from July 2020 to June 2025. The Notice took effect on the date of its publication.

Chinese companies should actively cooperate with the investigation, highlight the differences among products of different types and uses, and seek to narrow the scope of the products under investigation. They may also present arguments on injury and causation based on relevant price, cost and market factors, with a view to obtaining a lower anti-dumping duty. It is advisable to engage legal counsel to assist with the investigation and develop specific response strategies.

(Published: July 16, 2026)

On July 16, 2026, Argentina published Resolution No. 218/2026, formally opening an anti-dumping investigation into imports of industrial steel wind towers and their parts originating in the People’s Republic of China. The investigation was initiated following a petition filed by domestic producer GRI Calviño Towers Argentina S.A. and became effective on the date of publication.

The products under investigation comprise industrial steel wind towers, whether conical or otherwise, and their parts, with a minimum height of 50 metres measured from the base of the tower to the base of the nacelle, presented separately or together with a wind turbine generator, classified under NCM tariff headings 7308.20.00 and 8502.31.00. The National Foreign Trade Commission (CNCE) found sufficient evidence at the opening stage of presumed dumping, threat of material injury to the domestic industry and a causal link between the two.

Key Elements

• Estimated dumping margin of 46.39% at the opening stage:Based on information available for March 2025 to February 2026, the CNCE calculated a presumed weighted-average dumping margin of 46.39% for exports originating in China. Chinese imports were also found to have undersold domestic products by approximately 31%–38% in 2025.
• Threat of injury rather than existing material injury:The CNCE expressly found insufficient evidence of material injury during the period examined, but concluded that sufficient evidence existed of a threat of material injury. The analysis relied, among other factors, on expected future imports resulting from projects reportedly awarded to Chinese exporters and the significant price undercutting observed in 2025.
• Participation rights for Chinese exporters and Argentine importers:Interested parties may participate by submitting the applicable CNCE questionnaires, supporting documentation and other evidence within 30 days from publication of the opening resolution. Upon request, the CNCE may grant a 10-day extension. Failure to provide necessary information may result in determinations being based on the facts available.
• Accelerated procedural timetable:Under Argentina’s current anti-dumping framework, investigations should normally be completed within eight months. The CNCE must issue its preliminary determination within 90 days from opening and may recommend provisional anti-dumping measures if the applicable legal requirements are met.
• Potential definitive measures:If dumping, injury or threat of injury and causation are ultimately confirmed, Argentina may impose ad valorem or specific anti-dumping duties, minimum FOB export values or a combination of these measures. Definitive duties may remain in force for up to three years and may subsequently be extended through the applicable review procedure.

Practical Implications

• Chinese manufacturers and exporters should assess whether to participate actively in the investigation and provide pricing, cost and export information capable of challenging the alleged dumping margin and threat-of-injury findings.

• Developers, EPC contractors and project owners sourcing towers or integrated turbine-and-tower packages from China should evaluate the potential effect of provisional or definitive anti-dumping duties on procurement costs, project budgets and construction schedules.
• The CNCE expressly indicated that, during the investigation, it will further analyse the interaction with large-investment regimes. Wind projects operating or seeking benefits under the RIGI should therefore separately assess potential anti-dumping exposure when evaluating imported equipment costs.
• Existing contracts should be reviewed to determine the allocation of risk associated with new customs or trade-remedy measures, particularly under change-in-law, tax-and-duty, price-adjustment and termination provisions.
• Companies should assess alternative sourcing, potential local supply and the availability of commercially viable regional alternatives well before any preliminary or final measures are adopted.

(Relevant Rules Published: July 23 and July 27, 2026)

In July 2026, Chile introduced new rules concerning corporate gender equality disclosure and sustainability reporting. On July 23, Chile published Law No. 21,828 (Ley N° 21.828), amending the Labor Code (Código del Trabajo) to require companies meeting certain employee thresholds or operating in specified industries to prepare annual gender equality reports, submit them electronically to the Labor Directorate (Dirección del Trabajo) and make them publicly available. On July 27, the Financial Market Commission (Comisión para el Mercado Financiero, or CMF) issued General Rule No. 572 (Norma de Carácter General N° 572, or NCG 572), adjusting the implementation timeline for the NIIF S1 and NIIF S2 sustainability disclosure standards applicable to regulated entities.

The two measures strengthen corporate non-financial information management from the perspectives of labor regulation and capital markets supervision. The gender equality rules require covered companies to collect information regarding female workforce participation, representation in management positions, gender pay gaps and work-life balance measures. Separately, the CMF postponed the mandatory application of NIIF S1 and NIIF S2 by one year, providing regulated entities with additional time to improve their sustainability data collection and internal control systems. For businesses operating in Chile, human resources, corporate governance and sustainability information are becoming increasingly important components of corporate compliance.

Key Elements

• New annual gender equality reporting obligation: Companies with 200 or more employees are required to prepare an annual gender equality report. For companies operating in mining, research and development, finance, energy, transportation and construction, the threshold is reduced to 50 or more employees. The report must include information on female workforce participation, women’s representation in positions of responsibility, work-life balance measures and gender pay gaps.

• Reporting and public disclosure requirements: Covered companies must electronically submit the report to the Chilean Labor Directorate in March each year and make it publicly available on their corporate websites. The Labor Directorate is also required to transmit the relevant information to the competent gender equality and labor policy authorities within the first five business days of April each year.

• Implementation of NIIF S1 and NIIF S2 postponed: NCG 572 amends the implementation schedule previously established under NCG 519, postponing the application of the NIIF S1 and NIIF S2 sustainability disclosure requirements from reporting for fiscal year 2026 to reporting for fiscal year 2027, with the relevant provisions taking effect from December 31, 2027.
• Sustainability disclosure requirements remain in place: The CMF’s amendment extends the implementation timeline but does not eliminate or materially change the sustainability disclosure framework itself. The additional preparation period is intended to allow regulated entities to strengthen their internal processes and improve the completeness and consistency of future disclosures.

Practical Implications

• Companies meeting the applicable employee thresholds, particularly those operating in mining, energy, transportation and construction, should establish appropriate mechanisms for collecting and reviewing data on workforce gender composition, management representation, pay gaps and work-life balance measures in preparation for annual reporting and public disclosure obligations.
• Listed companies, securities issuers and other entities subject to the CMF’s integrated annual reporting requirements have been granted an additional year to prepare for NIIF S1 and NIIF S2. However, they should continue developing sustainability data systems, internal controls and cross-functional reporting processes rather than treating the postponement as a cancellation of the disclosure requirements.
• Foreign investors and multinational companies with subsidiaries in Chile should assess the applicability of the two regulatory frameworks based on employee headcount, industry and CMF regulatory status, and strengthen coordination among human resources, finance, legal and ESG functions to reduce the risk of incomplete or inconsistent non-financial disclosures.

(Effective: July 16, 2026)

Effective July 16, 2026, Colombia completed the final stage of the gradual reduction in statutory working hours established under Law 2101 of 2021 (Ley 2101 de 2021), reducing the ordinary maximum workweek from 44 hours to 42 hours. Law 2101 of 2021 amended Article 161 of the Substantive Labor Code (Código Sustantivo del Trabajo) and introduced a phased reduction of the maximum weekly working hours from 48 to 42 hours. The July 2026 adjustment marks the completion of this gradual implementation process.

Article 161 of the Substantive Labor Code, as subsequently amended by Law 2466 of 2025, continues to maintain a maximum 42-hour workweek and allows employers and employees to agree on distributing those hours over five or six days per week, subject to applicable rest requirements and without reducing employees’ salaries. For companies employing personnel in Colombia, the full implementation of the 42-hour workweek requires a review of existing work schedules, timekeeping systems, overtime calculations and workforce planning to ensure compliance with the new statutory maximum.

Key Elements

• Maximum weekly working hours reduced to 42 hours:Law 2101 of 2021 established a phased reduction in the statutory maximum workweek, from 48 hours to 47 hours in 2023, 46 hours in 2024, 44 hours in 2025 and, finally, 42 hours from July 16, 2026. The statutory reduction process is therefore now fully implemented.
• No reduction in salaries or acquired employment rights:The reduction in statutory working hours may not be used as a basis for reducing employees’ salaries or existing employment benefits. Employers must continue to respect employees’ acquired rights despite the decrease in weekly working hours.
• Working hours may be distributed over five or six days:Subject to agreement between the employer and employee, the 42-hour workweek may be distributed over five or six days, provided that applicable rest periods are observed and employees’ salaries are not affected. Employers therefore retain certain flexibility in organizing work schedules, subject to the statutory weekly limit.
• The 42-hour standard remains in force following the 2025 labor reform:Law 2466 of 2025 further amended Article 161 of the Substantive Labor Code but maintained the statutory maximum of 42 working hours per week, confirming the 42-hour workweek as the general maximum working-time standard under Colombia’s current labor framework.

Practical Implications

• Companies should review employment agreements, internal labor regulations, timekeeping systems and shift arrangements to ensure that ordinary working hours do not exceed 42 hours per week following completion of the final implementation stage.
• Companies in manufacturing, retail, logistics, construction and other sectors relying on shift work or continuous operations should assess the impact of reduced working hours on staffing and overtime arrangements and adjust the calculation and administration of overtime, night work and work performed on rest days where necessary.
• Foreign investors and multinational companies with employees in Colombia should note that the reduction in working hours does not permit a corresponding reduction in salaries. Payroll and attendance systems should therefore be updated accordingly, and human resources departments should strengthen the monitoring of actual working hours to reduce the risk of labor disputes or regulatory non-compliance.
  
  

Superintendence of Companies Unifies SAGRILAFT and PTEE into a Single Compliance System

(issued: July 2nd, and July 28, respectively)

On July 2, 2026, Colombia’s Superintendence of Companies (Superintendencia de Sociedades) issued External Circular No. 100-000020, adopting a new Basic Legal Circular (Circular Básica Jurídica) and comprehensively reforming the corporate compliance framework applicable to entities under its supervision. Most significantly, the Circular integrates the Self-Control and Comprehensive Risk Management System for Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (SAGRILAFT) and the Business Transparency and Ethics Programme (PTEE) into a single compliance framework covering money laundering, terrorist financing, proliferation financing, corruption and transnational bribery risks.

On July 28, 2026, the Colombian Government also issued Decree No. 0849/2026, establishing minimum guidelines for PTEEs under Law No. 2195 of 2022. The Decree provides a common baseline for the inspection, surveillance and control authorities that regulate PTEE requirements across different sectors, complementing the integrated framework adopted by the Superintendence of Companies.

Together, both measures strengthen Colombia’s corporate compliance framework by integrating SAGRILAFT and PTEE requirements for companies supervised by the Superintendence of Companies and establishing minimum PTEE standards applicable across supervisory authorities. Chinese-invested subsidiaries, branches and project companies in Colombia should therefore reassess their existing anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, due diligence and corporate governance frameworks.

Key Elements

• SAGRILAFT and PTEE consolidated into a single system:The previous parallel compliance regimes are replaced, for purposes of the new Chapter IX, by an integrated risk-management system covering LA/FT/FP and C/ST. Obligated entities must therefore manage these risks through a coordinated policy, procedures, governance structure and risk-based approach.
• New UVB thresholds and broader sectoral coverage:The general threshold for entities subject to the full system is 4,929,017 Basic Value Units (UVB) in total income or assets, subject to the applicable supervisory criteria. The Minimum Measures Regime applies lower thresholds to specified sectors and now extends to additional activities, including manufacturing and mining-energy, while smaller infrastructure and construction entities may also fall within its scope.
• Stricter Compliance Officer requirements and governance duties:The new framework requires the appointment of both a principal and an alternate Compliance Officer, increases minimum relevant professional experience to one year, requires periodic updating of compliance knowledge and introduces additional independence and incompatibility requirements. Boards of directors or the highest corporate body are also assigned express oversight responsibilities.
• Risk-based compliance and prohibition of “paper compliance”:Compliance systems must reflect the actual risk profile and circumstances of each obligated entity and may not merely reproduce third-party programmes. Due diligence must be periodically updated according to counterparty risk, with at least annual monitoring for high-risk counterparties and biennial monitoring for medium- and low-risk counterparties.
• PTEE minimum standards and sustainability reporting:Decree No. 0849 establishes minimum PTEE guidelines to be incorporated by the competent supervisory authorities. Separately, Chapter XI of the new Basic Legal Circular introduces a sustainability-reporting framework for certain entities based on size and sector, including mining-energy, manufacturing, construction, tourism, telecommunications and new technologies.
• Transition through May 31, 2027:Entities already subject to the previous SAGRILAFT and PTEE circulars must adapt their compliance systems to the new Chapter IX requirements by May 31, 2027. Existing systems and programmes remain valid for compliance purposes during the transition period.

Practical Implications

• Chinese-invested companies should test each Colombian subsidiary, branch, joint venture or project company against the new supervisory, sector and UVB thresholds, particularly in mining and energy, manufacturing, infrastructure and construction.
• Entities that maintained separate SAGRILAFT and PTEE policies, risk matrices, procedures and governance arrangements should develop a coordinated implementation plan for the new integrated system rather than continuing to operate parallel compliance structures.
• Obligated entities should verify that their principal and alternate Compliance Officers satisfy the new qualification and independence requirements and update counterparty-risk classification, due-diligence and monitoring procedures accordingly.
• The reform requires changes to policies, manuals, risk matrices, governance arrangements, training and reporting processes. Foreign-invested groups should therefore begin gap assessments and migration planning during 2026 rather than treating May 31, 2027 as the starting point for implementation.
  
  

Colombia Initiates Anti-Dumping Investigation into Collated Staples from China

On June 22, 2026, Colombia’s Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism published Resolution No. 305 of 2026 in the Official Gazette, announcing the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation into imports of collated staples (Spanish: grapas en tiras) originating in China, following an application filed by Colombian producers CAMILO ALBERTO MEJIA & CIA S.A.S. and SENCO LATIN AMERICA S.A.S. The period of investigation for dumping is from April 9, 2025 to April 8, 2026. The products under investigation are classified under Colombian tariff subheading 8305.20.00.00. The Resolution entered into force on the day following its publication.

Chinese companies should actively cooperate with the investigation and highlight the differences among collated staples of different specifications, dimensions, materials and uses, with a view to narrowing the scope of the products under investigation. They may also present arguments on injury and causation based on market demand, other sources of imports and the operating conditions of the Colombian domestic industry, in order to seek a lower anti-dumping duty. It is advisable to engage legal counsel to assist with the investigation.

(Published: july 24th, 2026)

The Constitutional Court of Peru (Tribunal Constitucional) has admitted for processing the constitutional grievance appeal (recurso de agravio constitucional) filed by Cosco Shipping Ports Chancay Perú S.A. (COSCO) in its dispute with the Supervisory Agency for Investment in Public Transport Infrastructure (OSITRAN) over the regulator’s authority to exercise regulatory, supervisory, inspection and sanctioning powers over the Multipurpose Port Terminal of Chancay. The admission of the appeal brings the dispute before Peru’s highest constitutional jurisdiction, although the Court has not yet ruled on the merits of COSCO’s claims.

The proceedings originated with an amparo action filed by COSCO against OSITRAN. In January 2026, the court of first instance ruled in favor of COSCO and ordered OSITRAN to refrain from exercising its regulatory, supervisory, inspection and sanctioning powers over the company’s operations at the Chancay Port Terminal, subject to a limited exception concerning tariffs. OSITRAN and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (PCM) appealed the decision. In June 2026, the Second Constitutional Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima reversed the first-instance ruling and declared COSCO’s amparo claim inadmissible, finding that OSITRAN’s actions constituted an exercise of its statutory powers and did not amount to a certain and imminent threat to COSCO’s constitutional rights.

Key Elements

• Constitutional Court Review:The Constitutional Court has admitted COSCO’s recurso de agravio constitucional, allowing the company to challenge the second-instance decision before the country’s highest constitutional court.
• First-Instance Decision:The first-instance court had granted COSCO’s amparo claim and restricted OSITRAN from exercising regulatory, supervisory, inspection and sanctioning powers over the Chancay Port Terminal, subject to a limited tariff-related exception.
• Second-Instance Reversal:The Second Constitutional Chamber subsequently reversed the first-instance decision and declared the amparo claim inadmissible, concluding that OSITRAN’s challenged actions fell within its legally established powers and did not constitute a sufficiently concrete and imminent threat to COSCO’s fundamental rights.
• Central Legal Issue:The dispute concerns whether OSITRAN may exercise its regulatory and supervisory powers over the Chancay Port Terminal based on the infrastructure’s public-use nature, despite its private ownership and the absence of a concession agreement. OSITRAN has maintained that its statutory jurisdiction applies to public-use transport infrastructure.
• Investment and Legal Certainty:COSCO has argued that the exercise of OSITRAN’s powers affects the legal framework under which it made its investment in the Chancay Port. The company has therefore sought constitutional protection against what it considers an alteration of the conditions applicable to its investment.

Practical Implications

• The Constitutional Court’s eventual decision may clarify the extent to which sector regulators may exercise their powers over privately owned infrastructure that is classified as public-use infrastructure.
• The case may provide relevant guidance for investors in large-scale infrastructure projects regarding the scope of regulatory powers that may apply to their operations and the availability of constitutional remedies when those powers are challenged.
• Companies involved in the operation, financing, development or use of the Chancay Port Terminal should monitor the proceedings, as the Court’s decision may affect the regulatory framework applicable to the terminal and its users.
• Infrastructure operators should assess the potential interaction between their contractual arrangements, investment structures and obligations arising from sector-specific regulatory frameworks, particularly where infrastructure is privately owned but made available for public use.
• Beyond COSCO and the Chancay Port, the case may establish relevant guidance regarding the balance between private investment, regulatory oversight and legal certainty in Peru’s transport infrastructure sector.
  
  

MINEM Approves New Requirements for Mine Closure Plans and Semi-Annual Reports

(Published: July 3, 2026)

On July 3, 2026, Peru published Ministerial Resolutions Nos. 257-2026-MINEM/DM and 256-2026-MINEM/DM, issued by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (Ministerio de Energía y Minas, MINEM), establishing new content requirements for Mine Closure Plans (Planes de Cierre de Minas, or PCM) and for the semi-annual progress reports that mining operators must submit to the Environmental Assessment and Enforcement Agency (OEFA) and the Energy and Mining Investment Supervisory Body (OSINERGMIN). The resolutions implement the regulatory framework introduced by Supreme Decree No. 006-2025-EM, which amended Peru’s Mine Closure Regulations.

The new framework standardizes the technical information that must accompany a PCM and materially increases the level of technical, environmental and financial substantiation required at the preparation stage. It also establishes differentiated reporting requirements for OEFA and OSINERGMIN according to their respective environmental and mining-safety supervisory functions.

Key Elements

• Standardized seven-chapter structure:PCMs must follow seven mandatory chapters covering the general framework; mining components and affected areas; supporting information for closure measures; citizen participation; closure activities; post-closure monitoring and maintenance; and schedule, budget and financial guarantees. Geospatial information on mining components must include location and footprint data in shapefile format using WGS84.
• Higher technical standards for long-term stability:The new requirements strengthen physical, hydrological, hydrogeological and geochemical stability assessments, including slope-stability modelling, climate-change and climate-variability scenarios, long-return-period hydrological studies, groundwater-flow and solute-transport modelling and more detailed assessment of acid or alkaline drainage risks.
• More detailed closure budgets and financial guarantees:PCMs must include itemized budgets, quantities supported by engineering drawings, unit-cost analyses, market quotations, costs by component and scenario and annualized calculations of the applicable financial guarantees. These requirements operate alongside the expanded guarantee regime for progressive closure of principal mining components introduced under the preceding statutory and regulatory reforms.
• Differentiated reporting to OEFA and OSINERGMIN:OEFA reports must substantiate environmental implementation of closure measures across the applicable closure stages, including physical and financial progress and supporting technical evidence. OSINERGMIN reports focus principally on post-closure physical stability of major mining components, including tailings facilities, waste dumps, leach pads, open pits and underground workings.
• Staggered effectiveness and transitional regime:The new semi-annual reporting requirements become effective on August 21, 2026, while the new PCM content becomes effective on November 16, 2026. Pending administrative proceedings remain governed by the rules under which they commenced. PCMs, modifications and updates already under preparation may also remain under the previous regime where the mining operator timely evidenced the engagement of its environmental consultant before the DGAAM.

Practical Implications

• Mining operators should reassess the timing and cost of preparing or updating their PCMs, as the new framework requires more extensive technical studies, modelling and engineering support before filing. The additional information may also affect the calculation and financing of closure guarantees.
• Chinese mining groups operating or developing projects in Peru should review, on a project-by-project basis, the status of existing PCMs, modifications and updates and determine whether the previous or new technical regime applies.
• Operators should ensure that monitoring systems, engineering records and document-management procedures can produce the information required by OEFA and OSINERGMIN, including georeferenced evidence, engineering documentation, monitoring results and physical and financial progress data.
• Information and technical studies that were previously developed or supplemented during the DGAAM review process will increasingly need to be incorporated when the PCM is initially prepared. Companies should therefore coordinate environmental, geotechnical, hydrological and financial workstreams earlier in the closure-planning process.
  
  

Ecuador Introduces Major Reforms to the Regulations Governing Public Procurement

(Published: July 30th, 2026)

Ecuador enacted significant amendments to the General Regulations of the Organic Law of the National Public Procurement System through Executive Decree No. 461, published on 30 July 2026. The decree, which entered into force upon publication, introduces 58 amendments affecting multiple stages of the public procurement process, including supplier registration, market consultations, bid evaluation, contract execution and payment procedures.

The reforms introduce new rules governing the operation of the Single Supplier Registry (RUP), expand certain powers of the National Public Procurement Service (SERCOP), strengthen market study requirements, incorporate the best value for money principle into procurement decisions and establish revised rules for contractual suspension and payment deadlines. The decree also includes transition measures requiring SERCOP to update its standard procurement documents and technological systems within specified implementation periods.

These amendments are expected to have a significant operational impact on companies participating in public procurement procedures, requiring suppliers and contractors to review their registration status, bidding practices, contractual documentation and compliance procedures to ensure alignment with the revised regulatory framework.

Key Elements

• Expanded Powers of SERCOP:SERCOP is authorized to establish fees for supplier registration and participation in procurement procedures under progressive and differentiated criteria based on the size and nature of the supplier. The existing 0.4% contribution applicable to contracts and purchase orders exceeding USD 1 million remains in force, while the governing board may modify both the threshold and the applicable percentage, provided it does not exceed 0.5%. SERCOP is also granted administrative enforcement powers to collect these obligations.
• New RUP Compliance Requirements:Suppliers must update any changes to their registration information within 10 days of the relevant modification. Failure to do so may result in suspension from the RUP. The reform also clarifies the consequences of not being duly registered at key stages of the procurement process, including rejection of the bid, inability to receive an award and declaration as a defaulting contractor.
• Contract Execution and Payment Rules:The amendments regulate temporary suspension of contractual performance and provide that, after 60 consecutive days of suspension, the contracting authority must generally proceed with contract termination and settlement unless justified by force majeure. The reform also establishes that payments must be made within a maximum of two months after the contractual payment requirements have been satisfied; delays may give rise to statutory interest and damages.
• Transition Measures:SERCOP must update the mandatory procurement templates within 120 days and adapt the Public Procurement Portal and related technological systems within 140 days. Until the new templates and guidelines are issued, the currently published procurement documents will continue to apply.

Practical Implications

• Companies participating in public procurement should verify that their RUP registration is complete, accurate and promptly updated, as failure to maintain an active registration may prevent participation in procurement procedures or contract awards.
• Suppliers should review their internal bidding processes to ensure compliance with the revised documentation requirements, including the mandatory integrity profile form, whose omission, errors or lack of signature may result in rejection of the bid without the possibility of correction.
• As contracting authorities may increasingly evaluate qualitative factors alongside price, bidders should consider emphasizing innovation, sustainability, technical performance and life-cycle costs when preparing competitive proposals.
• Contractors should assess their procedures for managing contractual suspensions, payment claims and potential disputes arising from delayed payments or prolonged project interruptions.
  
  

Ecuador Reforms Public Procurement Rules for Bidders and State Contractors

(published: July 30, 2026)

On July 30, 2026, Ecuador published Executive Decree No. 461, introducing extensive amendments to the General Regulations of the Organic Law of the National Public Procurement System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Nacional de Contratación Pública, or LOSNCP). The reform affects both the tendering and contract-execution stages of public procurement and introduces new rules on bid integrity, preliminary market consultations, payment terms, contractual suspensions and the application of international procurement commitments.

The amendments are particularly relevant for foreign contractors and suppliers participating in Ecuadorian infrastructure, energy, telecommunications and equipment-procurement projects. Among other changes, certain defects in integrity documentation are now expressly non-curable, the maximum contractual payment period has been extended, and new rules govern prolonged suspensions and the treatment of foreign bidders under applicable international agreements

Key Elements

• Stricter bid-integrity requirements:The reform introduces a mandatory Supplier Integrity Profile Form. Failure to submit it, material errors or omissions, or lack of the required signature constitute non-curable defects that may result in rejection of the bid.
• Longer maximum payment period:The previous maximum payment term of 30 days is replaced by a maximum period of two months. Once that period expires, payment is presumed to have been wrongfully withheld, allowing the contractor to claim statutory interest and proven damages.
• New rules on contractual suspensions:Contract suspensions are subject to a maximum period of 60 consecutive days. If the underlying cause persists, the contracting authority must terminate the contract; otherwise, subject to the applicable conditions, the contractor may seek termination.
• International procurement commitments:Contracting authorities must determine whether applicable international agreements contain public-procurement obligations and, where relevant, apply their coverage, thresholds, national-treatment rules, reservations and exceptions.

Practical Implications

• Foreign bidders should reinforce pre-submission legal and compliance reviews, particularly regarding integrity documentation, as certain defects can no longer be cured after filing.
• EPC contractors, construction companies and equipment suppliers should reflect the new two-month payment period and 60-day suspension regime in cash-flow models, schedules and contractual risk allocation.
• The China-Ecuador Free Trade Agreement does not contain a government-procurement chapter. Chinese contractors should therefore determine whether another applicable international instrument provides procurement rights before relying on national-treatment protections.
• SERCOP must update mandatory tender and contract templates and related technological platforms. Companies should verify the documents applicable to each procurement during the transition period.