Notice revoking the authorization for New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V. to operate as an investment fund operating company

DOF: 18/07/2016

OFFICIAL LETTER revoking the authorization granted to New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company, to operate as such.

With a seal bearing the National Coat of Arms, which reads: United Mexican States.- Ministry of Finance and Public Credit.- National Banking and Securities Commission.- Official Letter No. P-050/2016.

NEW YORK LIFE MEXICO INVESTMENTS, S.A. DE C.V., INVESTMENT FUND OPERATING COMPANY.

Paseo de la Reforma 342, Floor 14, Col. Juárez, Cuauhtémoc Delegation, C.P. 06600.

To: Lic. Mauricio Talamantes Gutiérrez, General Director. Authorized Representatives: José Adrian González Villareal, Sandy Viridiana González Caballero, Adriana Meixueiro Herrera, Adriana Salas Duarte, Pablo Perezalonso Eguía, Lucía Ibañez Tirado, Alan Jaime Misraihi, Alberto de Villa Albarrán, Ana Gabriela Martínez Kruyff, Begoña García Ochoa y García, Enrique López Scherer, Juan Pablo Secades Vargas, Luis Alonso Suárez del Real Tostado, María Fernanda Ibargengoitia Lira, Paulina Bojalil Warth, Rodrigo Carreras Valle, Stephanie Katheen Rennie Turner Zurita, Ana Paulina Arenas Espinosa, Rainer Walz del Valle, and Tomás Antonio Bayo Canalizo.

Based on the provisions of Article 83, Section VII, of the Investment Funds Law, Article 12, Section V, Article 16, Section VI, and the penultimate paragraph of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission, as well as the Agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of this Decentralized Body in its ordinary session held on June 27, 2016, this revocation resolution is issued regarding the authorization granted to New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company, to operate as an investment fund operating company, in accordance with the following:

BACKGROUND

By Official Letter P017/2015 of April 15, 2015, authorization was granted for the organization and functioning of the entity to be named New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company (hereinafter NYL, the Operating Company, the Entity, or the Company, interchangeably); additionally, a favorable opinion was issued regarding the draft constitutive deed of NYL, whose last registered address with this Commission is located at Paseo de la Reforma 342, Floor 14, Col. Juárez, Cuauhtémoc Delegation, C.P. 06600, Mexico City.

By Official Letter 312-3/13891/2015 of July 6, 2015, Public Instrument 47,047 was approved, through which NYL was constituted, and it was also stated that this Entity must notify this Commission, at least thirty business days in advance, of the date on which it intends to commence operations.

By written submission dated September 18, 2015, received on the same date at the Registry Office of this National Banking and Securities Commission, NYL requested an additional period of 180 days to commence operations, in accordance with the reasons set forth in the aforementioned written submission.

By Official Letter 312-3/13997/2015 of September 28, 2015, a 90-day extension was granted to NYL, counted from the day following the expiration of the period provided in Article 83, Section VII, of the Investment Funds Law (LFI), to commence its operations as an investment fund operating company, explicitly stating that such operations must commence no later than January 18, 2016. Reiterating that this Entity must notify this Commission, at least thirty business days in advance, of the date on which it intends to commence operations.

By written submission dated December 2, 2015, this Company requested the revocation of the authorization granted by this Commission for its organization and functioning, in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 Bis 4 of the LFI, stating that "... it will not commence operations and will be dissolved and liquidated ...".

By Memorandum DGASF-3/125/2016 of February 15, 2016, the General Directorate of Authorizations to the Financial System informed that on January 18, 2016, the period granted to NYL to commence its operations expired, stating that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 83, Section VII, of the LFI, it is a cause for revocation of the authorization granted to investment fund operating companies to not commence operations within the period granted for such effect, requesting that appropriate actions be taken.

By Official Letter 212/165393/2016 of March 29, 2016, this Commission summoned NYL to revoke its authorization to operate as an Investment Fund Operating Company, for the reasons explained therein, given that it was allegedly in the cause for revocation provided in Section VII of Article 83 of the LFI.

Likewise, through the aforementioned summons official letter, this Commission granted this Company a period of ten business days counted from the next business day following the effective date of notification of said official letter, so that, in exercise of its right to a hearing provided for in Articles 83 and 84, Section I, of the LFI, as well as Article 62 of the Supervision Regulation of the National Banking and Securities Commission, it could manifest in writing what it deemed appropriate for its rights, offer evidence, and formulate arguments, regarding the cause for revocation of its authorization to operate as an Investment Fund Operating Company, in which it was allegedly found to be located.

By written submission dated April 11, 2016, received at this Commission on the same date, NYL, in exercise of its right to a hearing, responded to Official Letter 212/165393/2016, making various statements regarding the cause for revocation in which it was allegedly found to be located, attaching the documentation it deemed relevant.

By written submission dated June 7, 2016, presented at this Decentralized Body on June 8 of the same year, NYL, in addition to its written submission of December 2, 2015 and in relation to the request raised in said petition, sends various documentation consisting of: (I) simple copy of the unanimous resolutions of the shareholders of NYL of June 1, 2016; (II) Certified copy of the instrument containing the protocolization of the unanimous resolutions of the shareholders of NYL; (III) simple copy of the general balance sheet and income statement as of May 31, 2016 of said Company, (IV) and the audited consolidated financial statements of Seguros Monterrey New York Life, S.A. de C.V.

The Board of Directors of the National Banking and Securities Commission, analyzing all and each of the background referred to in this chapter, in its ordinary session held on June 27, 2016, unanimously agreed to the revocation of the authorization granted by the National Banking and Securities Commission, to organize and function as an investment fund operating company to the company named New York Life Investments S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company.

As a result of the foregoing, the reasons and legal provisions that support and motivate the revocation of the authorization, to operate as an Investment Fund Operating Company, which was in its time granted to New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company, are exposed below, in accordance with the following:

CONSIDERATIONS

FIRST. Based on the provisions of Articles 33 and 83, Section VII, of the LFI, in relation to what is established in Article 12, Section V, of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission, this Decentralized Body is authorized to authorize the constitution and operation of Investment Fund Operating Companies and, if applicable, to agree to the revocation of said authorizations.

SECOND. That, in accordance with the provisions of Article 83, first paragraph, of the LFI, this Commission, with the agreement of its Board of Directors and prior to the right to a hearing of the investment fund operating company, may declare the revocation of the authorization granted, in the cases referred to therein, among which is that established in Section VII, which for quick reference is indicated below:

" Article 83.- The Commission, with the agreement of its Board of Directors and prior to the right to a hearing, may revoke the authorization of the companies referred to in Article 33 of this Law, when in its judgment:

...

VII. They do not present the public instrument in which the constitutive deed of the company is recorded, for its approval within ninety days following the date of granting the authorization; commence operations without presenting said public instrument for its approval, or do not commence their operations within the period of one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the authorization referred to in Article 33 of this Law is notified. The periods previously provided may be extended by one occasion when, in the judgment of the Commission, there is a justified reason;

... "

(Emphasis added)

THIRD. That this National Banking and Securities Commission, through Official Letter 212/165393/2016 of March 29, 2016, cited in paragraph 7 of the background section of this resolution, fully complied with the provisions of Articles 83, first paragraph, and 84, Section I, of the LFI, in relation to what is established in paragraph 62 of the Supervision Regulation of the National Banking and Securities Commission, by granting NYL a period of ten business days counted from the next business day following the effective date of notification thereof, so that, in exercise of its right to a hearing, it could manifest what it deemed appropriate for its rights, offer evidence, and formulate arguments, regarding the cause for revocation of its authorization to operate as an investment fund operating company in which it was found to be located, which is provided for in Section VII of Article 83 of the aforementioned legal instrument.

FOURTH.

That from the integral and exhaustive analysis of the content of all documents referred to in the background section of this resolution, especially (I) the summons official letter 212/165393/ 2016 of March 29, 2016 and (II) the written submission of April 11, 2016, received at this Commission on the same date, by virtue of which that Operating Company exercised its right to a hearing, it is determined that the cause for revocation for which that Company was summoned is established.

This is so, since through the aforementioned Official Letter 212/165393/2016 of March 29, 2016, that Entity was summoned for allegedly being located in the following cause for revocation:

" NOT COMMENCING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE AUTHORIZATION REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 33 OF THE INVESTMENT FUNDS LAW IS NOTIFIED.

This is so, since through Official Letter P017/2015 of April 15, 2015, this National Banking and Securities Commission granted authorization for the organization and functioning of NYLMI.

Subsequently, by Official Letter 312-3/13891/2015 of July 6, 2015, this Decentralized Body approved Public Instrument 47,047, in which the constitution of said Entity was recorded, explicitly stating that this Operating Company must notify this Institution, at least thirty business days in advance, of the date on which it intends to commence operations.

Subsequently, by written submission received at this Commission on September 18, 2015, that Operating Company requested (sic) an additional period of 180 days for the commencement of its operations, a request that was attended to in accordance with the provisions of Official Letter 312-3/13997/2015 of September 28, 2015, granting an extension of 90 days, counted from the day following the expiration of the period provided in Article 83, Section VII, of the LFI, to commence its operations as an investment fund operating company no later than January 18, 2016, reiterating that it must notify this Commission, at least thirty business days in advance, of the date on which it intends to commence operations.

Thus, according to what was stated by the General Directorate of Authorizations to the Financial System, that Entity will not commence operations despite the period established for such effect having elapsed, as well as the extension granted for such purpose, which is why this Commission concludes that that Operating Company may be located in the case of revocation established in Section VII of Article 83 of the LFI ... "

Thus, it is worth noting that this Decentralized Body summoned that Company to revoke its authorization to operate as an investment fund operating company for allegedly having incurred in the cause for revocation provided in Section VII of Article 83 of the LFI, that is, for not having commenced operations despite the period established for such effect having elapsed, as well as the extension granted for such purpose.

Regarding this matter, by written submission dated April 11, 2016, received at this Commission on the same date, that Entity, in exercise of its right to a hearing, stated the following:

" ...

By this means and in exercise of the right to a hearing of my represented party, I respectfully state:

(a)

In the Summons Official Letter, no mention is made of the Withdrawal Request which was presented before this CNBV more than 30 business days in advance of the deadline for the commencement of operations of the Operating Company, which is why what is provided in Section VII of Article 83 of the Investment Funds Law is not applicable to my represented party by virtue of the fact that the Withdrawal Request was presented before the expiration of the legal period.

The Withdrawal Request has not yet been responded to by the National Banking and Securities Commission; and

(b)

Since it is in the interest of my represented party, I request once again that a favorable response be given to the Withdrawal Request and therefore the revocation of the Authorization Official Letter be agreed upon, in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 Bis 4 of the Investment Funds Law, so that the Operating Company will not commence operations and will be dissolved and liquidated. It is important to note that, as described in subsection (a) above, at the time of the presentation of the Withdrawal Request, the period to commence operations of the Operating Company had not expired. For the above, the shareholders of the Operating Company, through Unanimous Resolutions of the Shareholders, (i) agreed to the dissolution and liquidation of the company, and (ii) approved the financial statements of the Operating Company on its own behalf or derived from operations reserved for intermediaries, since said company has not carried out any operations. Attached to this written submission, as Annex 2, is the draft Unanimous Resolutions to be adopted by the shareholders of the Operating Company, which was presented as an Annex to the Withdrawal Request.

By virtue of the arguments exposed in paragraph 12 above, and that the normative assumptions contained in Article 83 Section VII of the Investment Funds Law have not been actualized, I respectfully request that this CNBV, (i) consider and respond to the Withdrawal Request and (ii) in accordance with Article 34 Section VII second paragraph of the aforementioned Law, the principal and, if applicable, the accessories of the Deposit be returned to SMNYL. "

Seeing the above, as a summary, it is worth noting that that Entity, in exercise of its right to a hearing, stated that it presented a withdrawal request " with more than 30 business days in advance of the deadline for the commencement of operations " stating that for this reason " what is provided in Section VII of Article 83 of the Investment Funds Law is not applicable ... " , requesting in effect " a favorable response " to the same and " therefore the revocation of the Authorization Official Letter be agreed upon in accordance with what is provided by Article 81 Bis 4 of the Investment Funds Law so that the Operating Company will not commence operations and will be dissolved and liquidated " .

To this effect, regarding " the Withdrawal Request and revocation of the Authorization Official Letter ... in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 Bis 4 of the Investment Funds Law " to which that Entity refers, it is stated that the same was resolved by the Board of Directors of this National Banking and Securities Commission, estimating that the request for revocation of the authorization of New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V. Investment Fund Operating Company, to organize and function as an investment fund operating company, in accordance with what is provided by Article 81 Bis 4 of the LFI, is inadmissible, given that:

" From the analysis of the requirements indicated in Article 81 Bis 4 of the LFI, it can be inferred that the case of voluntary revocation is provided for companies that have commenced operations, since they could not be fulfilled by an entity that has not carried out any operation. "

On the other hand, regarding the request for return of the deposit receipt that was in its time presented by NYL in compliance with what is provided in Article 34 of the LFI, the Board of Directors of this Decentralized Body determined to deny its return, given the following:

" Article 34 of the LFI provides, among the requirements to obtain authorization to organize and function as an investment fund operating company, presenting the deposit receipt in national currency constituted in a credit or securities institution in favor of the Treasury of the Federation, for an amount equal to ten percent of the minimum capital with which the company must operate in accordance with the LFI; a requirement that guarantees the seriousness of the authorization procedure.

The promoters delivered with the written submission dated November 10, 2014, deposit receipt number S553553, constituted in Banco del Ahorro Nacional y Servicios Financieros, S.N.C, for the amount of $10,000,000.00 and with various written submissions presented on December 2, 2015, requested its return under Article 34, Section VII, of the LFI, which provides for the return of the deposit receipt in case of withdrawal.

In the case at hand and since the authorization procedure for NYL Mexico has concluded, having granted said authorization for its organization and functioning, in accordance with the aforementioned Article 34 of the LFI, the return of the deposit receipt would only be appropriate from the moment the company had commenced operations, since the withdrawal referred to in Section VII of Article 34 of the LFI would only be appropriate if the authorization procedure had not concluded.

This is so, since the deposit receipt represents the commitment of the company not to leave the authorization procedure incomplete, commencing its operations prior to compliance with the requirements established in the law, in the periods and under the conditions that it provides.

To further clarify, Article 83, Section VII, of the LFI, provides as a cause for revocation not to commence operations within the period established by law, from which it is inferred that it is the obligation of the company to commence its operations and, if it fails to do so, the authorization to organize and function as an investment fund operating company would be revoked, with the consequence of making the deposit receipt effective.

For the above, the revocation at the request of the party in the case at hand is not considered appropriate, since for an authorized entity to commence its operations cannot be optional since it would lose all relevance the obligation to constitute a deposit as a guarantee of seriousness of the procedure and the applicability to the cause for revocation consisting of not commencing operations in the period fixed by law would be notably reduced. "

Seeing the above, it is indisputable that the arguments raised by that Company in the written submission of April 11, 2016 are not directed to challenge the cause for revocation for which that Entity was summoned, that is, " not commencing operations despite the period established for such effect having elapsed, as well as the extension granted for such purpose " , which is why they are inoperative.

To further clarify, in the written submission referred to in paragraph 5 of the background section of this resolution, the Entity, in addition to not exposing any statement aimed at challenging or disproving the cause for revocation for which it was summoned, explicitly refers that " the Operating Company will not commence operations " , which must be considered as an express confession that ratifies and makes patent the fact that is imputed to it, that is, not commencing operations despite the period established for such effect having elapsed, as well as the extension granted for such purpose, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 93, Section I, 95, and 96 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedures, applicable to the matter in accordance with what is established in the antepenultimate paragraph of Article 84 Bis of the Investment Funds Law.

As for the evidence offered (Annexes 1 and 2) in the written submission of April 11, 2016, referred to in antecedent 8 of the background section of this resolution, by virtue of which that Entity exercised its right to a hearing, consisting of (I) the simple copy of the written submission of December 2, 2015, by virtue of which that Company requested the revocation of the authorization granted by this Commission, for its organization and functioning in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 Bis 4 of the LFI, from which it is clear that it has the reception label of the Registry Office of that same date, as well as (II) the document named " draft Unanimous Resolutions to be adopted by the shareholders of the Operating Company " , the same are admitted in accordance with the provisions of Articles 84 Bis of the LFI, 197, 133, and 203 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedures, applicable in the matter in accordance with what is established in the antepenultimate paragraph of said Article 84 Bis of the aforementioned legal instrument, however, from the analysis of their content, no element of conviction is derived by virtue of which the cause for revocation for which that Entity was summoned is disproven.

This is so, given that they are directed to attempt to prove compliance with the requirements established in the case of revocation of authorization at the request of the party provided for in Article 86 Bis 4 of the LFI, which in no way result applicable to the revocation procedure for which said Company was summoned, for the reasons that were exposed above; that is, in

terms as provided for in section VII of article 83 of the Investment Funds Law (LFI); therefore, they do not provide any element of conviction by virtue of which that Entity discredits the fact that placed it in said cause for revocation, namely, not commencing operations despite the deadline established for such effect having elapsed.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, regarding said documents, that Operator shall be bound by what was resolved by the Board of Directors of this Commission in relation to its "request for Withdrawal and revocation of the Authorization Notice ... in terms of what is provided for in article 81 Bis 4 of the Investment Funds Law".

Regarding the documents attached to the writing of June 7, 2016, referred to in the antecedent marked with numeral 9 of the relevant section of this resolution, despite having been presented outside the deadline granted for the exercise of its right to be heard, consisting of: (I) simple copy of the unanimous resolutions of the shareholders of NYL of June 1, 2016; (II) certified copy of the instrument containing the protocolization of the unanimous resolutions of the shareholders of NYL; (III) simple copy of the general balance sheet and income statement as of May 31, 2016 of that Company, (IV) and the audited consolidated financial statements of Seguros Monterrey New York Life, S.A. de C.V., these are admitted in accordance with what is provided for in articles 84 Bis of the LFI, 197, 133 and 203 of the Federal Code of Civil Procedures, applicable in this matter in terms of what is established in the penultimate paragraph of said article 84 Bis of the aforementioned legal instrument, however, from the analysis of their content, no element of conviction is derived by virtue of which the cause for revocation for which that Entity was summoned is disproven, that is, "not commencing operations despite the deadline established for such effect, as well as the extension granted for such purpose".

This is so, given that they are directed to attempt to prove compliance with the requirements established in the case of revocation of authorization at the request of the party provided for in article 86 Bis 4 of the LFI, which are in no way applicable to the revocation procedure for which that Company was summoned, for the reasons exposed above; that is, in terms of what is provided for in section VII of article 83 of the LFI; therefore, they do not provide any element of conviction by virtue of which that Entity discredits the fact that placed it in said cause for revocation, namely, not commencing operations despite the deadline established for such effect having elapsed.

This is without prejudice to the fact that from the analysis of the requirements indicated in article 81 Bis 4 of the LFI, it can be inferred that the voluntary revocation case is provided for companies that have commenced operations, since they could not be fulfilled by an entity that has not carried out any operation.

However, since from the reading and analysis of the document titled "CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INSTRUMENT CONTAINING THE PROTOCOLIZATION OF THE UNANIMOUS RESOLUTIONS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF" NEW YORK LIFE MÉXICO INVESTMENTS ", VARIABLE CAPITAL CORPORATION, INVESTMENT OPERATING COMPANY", it is derived, among other matters, that the aforementioned shareholders in the "FIRST" resolution agreed that "in the absence of pending operations or accounts payable of the Company, in accordance with the provisions of its bylaws and articles 229 section III and 234 of the General Law of Commercial Companies, it is resolved to dissolve the Company in advance and put it into liquidation". Likewise, in the "SECOND" Resolution, they agreed that "the financial statements of the Company as of May 31, 2016 are approved, analyzed by the shareholders before the adoption of these resolutions; the financial statements thus approved will be the basis for the liquidation of the Company. In view of the fact that the income statement reflects that there was no capital contribution by the shareholders and no result in its operation, there is no capital and social equity to distribute, so the general balance sheet as of May 31, 2016 attached to the present is approved and will be considered for all legal effects that may apply, as the final liquidation balance sheet of the Company", probative value is granted to said document to prove that NYL is in a state of dissolution and liquidation, as well as that there was no capital contribution by the shareholders and no result in its operation, so there is no capital and social equity to distribute.

This information is confirmed by reading what is stated in the document titled "GENERAL BALANCE SHEET AS OF MAY 31, 2016", which was accompanied in simple copy to the aforementioned writing of June 7, 2016, to which probative value is granted to prove that NYL has no assets or liabilities.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, since these documents were presented in relation to its "request for Withdrawal and revocation of the Authorization Notice ... in terms of what is provided for in article 81 Bis 4 of the Investment Funds Law", that Operator shall be bound by what was resolved by the Board of Directors of this Commission in relation to said request.

FIFTH. For the reasons set forth in the consideration above of this resolution, this Commission determines that it confirms the fact that that Operator did not commence operations within the term granted for such effect, despite having been granted an extension, which is why it is concluded that that Entity falls under the cause for revocation of its authorization to operate as an Investment Fund Operating Company provided for in section VII of article 83 of the LFI, which is referred to below:

"Article 83.- The Commission, with the agreement of its Board of Directors and after the right to be heard, may revoke the authorization of the companies referred to in article 33 of this Law, when in its judgment:

...

VII. They do not present the public instrument in which the constitutive deed of the company is recorded, for its approval within ninety days following the date of granting the authorization; commence operations without presenting said public instrument for its approval, or do not commence their operations within the period of one hundred eighty days from the date on which the authorization referred to in article 33 of this Law is notified. The aforementioned deadlines may be extended on one occasion when, in the judgment of the Commission, there is a justified reason;

..."

(Emphasis added)

Consequently, upon the occurrence of the revocation case provided for in section VII of article 83 of the LFI, the case established in the last part of section VII of article 34 of the same legal instrument is materialized, which is transcribed below for quick reference:

Article 34.- The request for authorization to constitute itself as investment fund operating companies, fund share distributing companies or fund share valuing companies, shall be accompanied by the following:

...

VII. Proof of deposit in national currency constituted in a credit institution or government securities for its market value, in favor of the Treasury of the Federation, for an amount equal to ten percent of the minimum capital with which the company must operate in accordance with this Law. The principal and, if applicable, accessories of said deposit will be returned to the applicant in the event of withdrawal, as well as in the event that the request is denied or when the investment fund operating company, fund share distributing company or fund share valuing company commences operations in the terms provided for in this Law. In the event that the authorization is revoked in accordance with what is provided for in article 83, section VII of this Law, the amount of the deposit shall become effective, and

..."

(Emphasis added)

Under these conditions, it is appropriate to make effective the deposit constituted at that time by that Company in favor of the Treasury of the Federation, by means of a deposit ticket identified with number S553553, constituted in Banco del Ahorro Nacional y Servicios Financieros, S.N.C., for the amount of $10,000,000.00 (TEN MILLION PESOS 00/100 M.N.).

In view of the foregoing, the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV), prior agreement of its Board of Directors in its ordinary session held on June 27, 2016, and with the object of preserving the stability of the financial system as a whole, safeguarding the interests of the public:

RESOLVES

FIRST.- This Decentralized Body, based on what is provided for in articles 83, section VII, of the Investment Funds Law and 12, section V, of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission; in accordance with the Agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of said Commission in its ordinary session held on June 27, 2016, and the considerations exposed in this Resolution, revokes the authorization that was granted at that time to New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company, to organize and function as an investment fund operating company, through notice P017/2015 of April 15, 2015.

SECOND.- Based on what is provided for in article 34, section VII, in relation to what is established in 83, section VII, of the Investment Funds Law, in view of the considerations exposed in this Resolution and as a consequence of the revocation of the authorization that was granted at that time to New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company, the deposit constituted at that time by said Company in favor of the Treasury of the Federation is made effective, by means of a deposit ticket identified with number S553553, constituted in Banco del Ahorro Nacional y Servicios Financieros, S.N.C., which will be brought to the knowledge of the competent instances, by means of notification of this resolution.

THIRD.- Regarding what is provided for in article 82 bis of the Investment Funds Law, in view of that in accordance with the documentation on file, New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company, has been liquidated to date, the material and legal impossibility of carrying out the designation of liquidator referred to in section II of article 83 of the Investment Funds Law is declared.

FOURTH.- This resolution shall be notified to "New York Life México Investments, S.A. de C.V., Investment Fund Operating Company", in accordance with what is provided for in article 87 Bis 2 of the Investment Funds Law.

FIFTH.- Based on what is provided for in article 82 Bis of the Investment Funds Law, this notice shall be registered in the Public Commerce Registry corresponding and published in the Official Gazette of the Federation as well as in two newspapers of wide circulation in the country.

SIXTH.- Based on what is established in the penultimate paragraph of article 16 of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission, in relation to what is provided for in articles 4, 9 and 12 of the Internal Regulations of the National Banking and Securities Commission, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on November 12, 2014, and in terms of what was ordered in the Eleventh Agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of said Commission in its ordinary session held on June 27, 2016, it is delegated indistinctly to the public servants of this Commission, Karla Patricia Montoya Gutiérrez, María Isabel Almaráz Guzmán, Mariana Vázquez Bracho García, Josué Martínez Rocha, Ivonne Marcela López Franco, Ángel Jonathan García Romo, José Luis García González, Luis Antonio Rodríguez Rodríguez, Juan Carlos Macías Luna, Alfredo Omar Morlán Fernández, José Alberto Jiménez Rosales, Rogelio García Martínez, Saúl Hernández Pérez, Alberto Erick Méndez Medina, Rosa Cristina Ávalos Gutiérrez, Selene Saucedo García and Tania Patricia Morales Reyes, the charge of notifying, jointly or separately, this notice by which compliance is given to the agreements adopted by the Board of Directors of said Commission.

The foregoing is made known to you by the Legal Vice President of the National Banking and Securities Commission, in substitution for the absence of the President of the National Banking and Securities Commission, in accordance with what is provided for in articles 12 and 54 of the Internal Regulations of the National Banking and Securities Commission, as well as in terms of the Tenth Agreement adopted by the Board of Directors of said Commission in its ordinary session held on June 27, 2016.

Sincerely

Mexico City, July 6, 2016.- The Legal Vice President of the National Banking and Securities Commission, Edgar Manuel Bonilla del Ángel.- Rubric.

In the document you are viewing, there may be text, characters or objects that are not displayed correctly due to conversion to HTML format, so we recommend always taking the digitized image of the DOF or the PDF file of the edition as a reference. The content, form and scope of published documents are the strict responsibility of their issuer.

INQUIRY

BY DATE

Do Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

INDICATORS

Exchange Rate and Rates as of 31/08/2026

DOLLAR 17.0427 UDIS 8.810483 TIIE 28 DAYS 6.7659% TIIE 91 DAYS 6.8033% TIIE 182 DAYS 6.8577% TIIE OVERNIGHT 6.51%

See more

SURVEYS

Did you like the new look of the Official Gazette of the Federation website?

No Yes

Official Gazette of the Federation Río Amazonas No. 62, Col. Cuauhtémoc, C.P. 06500, Mexico City Tel. (55) 5093-3200, where you can access our services menu Electronic address: dof.gob.mx 111 LEGAL NOTICE | SOME RIGHTS RESERVED © 2026