Notice revoking the authorization granted to Union de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V. to operate as a credit union

DOF: 15/06/2018

OFFICE through which the authorization granted to Unión de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V. to operate as a credit union is revoked.

A seal with the National Coat of Arms, which reads: United Mexican States.- Ministry of Finance and Public Credit.- National Banking and Securities Commission.- Office No.: P140/2018.- File No.: CNBV.212.421.12(5541) "2017/Nov/09,2017/Nov/09" /U-877/01/.

SUBJECT:

Your authorization to operate as a Credit Union is revoked.

UNIÓN DE CRÉDITO VIDACREDIT, S.A. DE C.V.

Transpeninsular Highway North Km. 15, S/N,
Col. Ampliación Centenario, C.P. 23205,
La Paz, Baja California Sur.

Attn.:

ENG. VÍCTOR NAHUM NAJJÁR

President of the Board of Directors.

This National Banking and Securities Commission, based on the provisions of articles 97 of the Credit Unions Law (hereinafter LUC) and 16, fractions VI and XVII, of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission (hereinafter LCNBV); in order to comply with said legal frameworks, issues this resolution revoking the authorization granted to operate as a credit union, which was previously granted to the company known as Unión de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V. (hereinafter VIDACREDIT, Entity or Company, interchangeably), in accordance with the following:

GENERAL BACKGROUND

I.

Through office 312-1/523714/2006, dated December 6, 2006, the National Banking and Securities Commission granted authorization to operate as a credit union to the entity known as Unión de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V., with domicile in Mexico City.

II.

Through office 311-12103/2013, dated March 7, 2013, this Commission authorized modifying the terms of the authorization granted to VIDACREDIT, changing its domicile to the one located at Carretera Transpeninsular al Norte Km. 15, S/N, Col. Ampliación Centenario, C.P. 23205, La Paz, Baja California Sur.

III.

Through office 212/62414/2018, dated January 8, 2018, this Commission summoned VIDACREDIT to revoke its authorization to operate as a credit union, as it may have been located in the causes provided for in article 97, fractions II, III, IX and XIV, of the LUC.

In terms of the aforementioned office, this Decentralized Body granted VIDACREDIT a term of ten business days counted from the next business day following the one in which the notification of the same took effect, so that, in exercise of its right to be heard, it would manifest what was convenient for its rights, offer evidence and formulate arguments, in relation to the causes for revocation for which it was summoned.

IV.

From the records held in the archives of this Commission, it is evident that, despite the term granted to that Entity having elapsed through the summons office 212/62414/2018, dated January 8, 2018, to exercise its right to be heard regarding the possible updating of the causes for revocation of its authorization to operate as a credit union, VIDACREDIT did not exercise it.

V.

On May 14, 2018, the revocation of the authorization of Unión de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V. was submitted to the consideration of the Governing Board of the National Banking and Securities Commission, based on the facts indicated in the previous paragraphs, which adopted Agreement Tenth, a certification of which is attached to this resolution and, for quick reference, is transcribed:

" TENTH.-

The members of the Governing Board, based on article 12, fractions V and XV of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission, in relation to article 97, fractions II, III, IX and XIV of the Credit Unions Law, taking into consideration the favorable opinion of the Sanctions Committee of the National Banking and Securities Commission in its session held on April 18, 2018, unanimously agreed to the revocation of the authorization granted at its time by the National Banking and Securities Commission, through office number 312-1/523714/2006 dated December 6, 2006, to operate as a credit union, to the company known as Unión de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V., so that in accordance with the Credit Unions Law, its dissolution and liquidation shall proceed, in the terms contained in the resolution attached to the respective note. "

As a result of the above, the reasons and legal provisions that support and motivate the revocation of the authorization granted to operate as a credit union, which was previously granted to Unión de Crédito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V., are set forth below, in accordance with the following:

CONSIDERATIONS

FIRST. Based on the provisions of articles 14 and 97 of the LUC, in relation to what is established in articles 4, fractions XI and XXXVIII, as well as 12, fractions V and XV, of the LCNBV, this Decentralized Body is authorized to authorize the constitution and operation of credit unions and, if applicable, to agree on the revocation of said authorizations.

SECOND. That in terms of what is provided in article 97 of the LUC, this Commission, after hearing the corresponding credit union, may declare the revocation of the authorization granted in the cases referred to therein, among which are those established in fractions II, III, IX and XIV, which for quick reference are transcribed below:

" Article 97.- The Commission, with the agreement of its Governing Board and after hearing the interested society, may declare the revocation of the authorization granted to the unions, in the following cases:

...

II.

If the union does not meet the capitalization requirements established in accordance with the provisions of article 48 of this Law and the provisions to which said provision refers;

III.

If the union in question does not comply with any of the minimum corrective measures referred to in article 80 of this Law; does not comply with more than one additional special corrective measure referred to in said article or, well, repeatedly fails to comply with an additional special corrective measure;

...

IX.

When imprecise or incomplete information is provided to financial authorities on two or more occasions;

...

XIV.

If the book capital of the union is less than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it, and..."

THIRD. That this National Banking and Securities Commission, through office 212/62414/2018, dated January 8, 2018, cited in paragraph III. of the background section of this resolution, fully complied with what is provided in article 97, first paragraph, of the LUC, in relation to what is established in fraction I of article 110 of the same legal framework, as well as in article 62 of the Supervision Regulations of the National Banking and Securities Commission, by granting that Company a term of ten business days counted from the next business day following its notification, so that in exercise of its right to be heard, it would manifest what was convenient for its rights, offer evidence and formulate arguments, in relation to the causes for revocation of its authorization to operate as a credit union in which it was allegedly found located, which are provided for in fractions II, III, IX and XIV of said article 97.

FOURTH.

From the analysis of the content of office 212/62414/2018, referred to in paragraph III. of the background section of this resolution, it is evident that this Commission summoned that Entity, in virtue that it may have been located in the following revocation causes: i) the book capital of that Company is lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it; ii) the union does not meet the capitalization requirements established in accordance with the provisions of article 48 of the LUC and the provisions to which said provision refers; iii) it did not comply with the minimum corrective measures dictated by this Commission, in terms of what is established in article 80 of the LUC; and iv) providing incomplete financial information.

The aforementioned summons office was personally notified on January 29, 2018; however, after having carried out an exhaustive review of the records held in this Commission, to date, there is no record that that Company has given any response and much less that it has issued any consideration regarding it or provided means of conviction by virtue of which it would disprove the revocation causes in which it was allegedly found located.

The foregoing, as corroborated by the integral and exhaustive analysis of the content of all and each of the documents referred to in the background sections of the summons office 212/62414/2018, dated January 8, 2018 (which are held in the archives of this Commission), especially of the information sent by the Entity itself and analyzed by the supervision area (offices 132-C/5120/2017, dated May 31, 2017, 132-C/5207/2017, dated July 4, 2017, 132-C/5287/2017, dated August 24, 2017, 132-C/101629/2016, dated September 19, 2016, 132-C/5281/2017, dated August 24, 2017, as well as the writings of June 20, August 25, September 11 and 12, both in 2017); therefore, this Commission determines that VIDACREDIT is located in the revocation causes for which it was summoned, for the reasons indicated below:

1.

The book capital and net capital of that Company are lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it.

From the analysis of offices 132-C/5120/2017, dated May 31, 2017 (observation office), 132-C/5207/2017, dated July 4, 2017 (office of actions and corrective measures) and 132-C/5287/2017, dated August 24, 2017 (office of follow-up of actions and corrective measures), as well as the writings of June 20 (manifestations regarding the observation office) and September 11 (manifestations regarding the office of actions and corrective measures and the follow-up thereof), both in 2017, it is evident that the net capital of that Company is lower than the minimum capital required, in terms of what is provided in the third paragraph of article 48 of the LUC, in relation to what is established in article 18, fraction I, of the same legal framework and articles 77 to 83 of the "General Provisions applicable to general deposit warehouses, exchange houses, credit unions and multiple-object financial companies regulated" (hereinafter Provisions); as well as that the book capital of said Entity is lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it, in terms of what is established in said article 18, fraction I, of the LUC.

As a result of the analysis that this Commission carried out on the financial information contained in the financial statements of that Entity with figures as of January 31 and February 28, 2017, it was evident that VIDACREDIT presented a book capital lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it, for which reason the observation office 132-C/5120/2017, dated May 31, 2017, was issued, in which, regarding this matter, the observations identified with paragraphs 1. "Capital contable inferior al capital mínimo requerido en función al nivel de operaciones que le fue autorizado" (Book capital lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it) and 2. "Incumplimiento al límite legal de capital neto" (Non-compliance with the legal limit of net capital) were established, in which it was made known to that Company that from the review carried out on the figures contained in Regulatory Report R01-A-111 Minimum Catalog, coincident with those reflected in Regulatory Reports R13-B 1321 Balance Sheet and R13-B 1322 Statement of Results with figures as of January 31 and February 28, 2017, it was determined that said Company presents a book capital lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it (amount equivalent to 2,000,000 units of investment as of December 31, 2015), in accordance with what is provided in article 18 of the LUC, since it presented the following figures:

Likewise, from the review that this Commission carried out on the figures presented in Regulatory Report R21-A 2111 Capitalization Requirements for Credit Risk, as well as on the compliance with legal capital limits as of January 31 and February 28, 2017, it was determined that said Company presents a Net Capital lower than the minimum subscribed and paid capital required for operation level I (amount equivalent to 2,000,000 UDIS as of December 31, 2015), in accordance with what is provided in article 18 of the LUC, since it presented the following figures:

Regarding said observations (marked with paragraphs 1. and 2. of office 132-C/5120/2017, dated May 31, 2017), through a writing dated June 20, 2017 (presented in the Common Deeds Office of this Institution on the 21st of the same month and year), that Company, in exercise of the right to be heard granted to it, manifested that "the Union has had to proceed to register reserves for overdue portfolio, which, although in practice, are not overdue portfolio because these credits are fully recoverable due to the characteristics of each of them... accountingly and according to the provisions, they have had to be reserved until the moment when the partners agree by majority on the procedure to be followed regarding this matter"; therefore, this Commission determined that VIDACREDIT did not disprove the behaviors referred to in the aforementioned observations, for which reason through office 132-C/5207/2017, dated July 4, 2017, it issued the corresponding corrective actions, stating that the determined observations were found with the status of "Not disproven (in process) with corrective action", because:

• Observation 1: this Commission communicated that the observation is not disproven, in virtue that that Company acknowledged having incurred in the observed behavior in the aforementioned paragraph 1. of office 132-C/5120/2017, dated May 31, 2017, expressing the reasons why the book capital of that Entity is lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it; for which reason it was instructed to carry out the actions and corrective measures mentioned below:

a)

Establish, inform and remit the supporting documentation that accredits the preventive and corrective internal control measures that are necessary to implement in order to comply with what is stated in the regulations and avoid this type of non-compliance in the future.

b)

If applicable, remit the supporting documentation that demonstrates that its book capital is within the legal requirements.

• Observation 2: this Commission communicated that the observation is not disproven, in virtue that that Company acknowledged its lack of net capital according to operation level I, indicating the reasons for the affectation, confirming thereby that said lack prevailed at the time of the review carried out; for which reason it was instructed to carry out the actions and corrective measures contemplated in article 80, fraction I, of the LUC.

To this effect, since that Company did not issue any pronouncement regarding the actions and corrective measures that were dictated through office 132-C/5207/2017, dated July 4, 2017, through the different office 132-C/5287/2017, dated August 24, 2017, follow-up was given to them, determining that said actions and corrective measures were found in the status of "Not attended", and the following actions were determined for it:

• Observation 1:

Present a program that details actions and specific dates, in a reasonable period of time that allows them to comply with what is stated in the regulations and avoid this type of non-compliance in the future.

• Observation 2:

Carry out the actions and measures provided for in fraction I of article 80 of the LUC.

Regarding this matter, through a writing dated September 11, 2017 (presented in the Common Deeds Office of this Institution on the 13th of the same month and year), that Company, in exercise of its right to be heard, manifested that "certain measures have been carried out to improve the Union's figures", referring to figures on the book capital and net capital of that Entity; however, it was omitted to present the capital restoration plan that was required of it, as well as the necessary information to accredit compliance with the minimum corrective measures that were dictated to it.

On the other hand, it is important to note that from the analysis carried out by this Institution on the financial information sent by said Entity through the regulatory reports "R01-A-0111 Minimum Catalog", "R13-B-1321 Balance Sheet", "R13-B-1322 Statement of Results" and "R21-A-2111 Capitalization Requirements for Credit Risk", corresponding to the period between January and July 2017, it is evident that VIDACREDIT, during such months, failed to meet the capitalization requirements established in relation to the credit and market risks it incurred in its operation, since its net capital resulted lower than the minimum capital required based on its level of operations, as well as that the book capital of that Entity has been lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it.

Under the aforementioned conditions, it is affirmed that as a result of the review of the information contained in the financial statements corresponding to that Company, with figures as of January 31 and February 28, 2017, as well as of the financial information sent by said Entity through the regulatory reports "R01-A-0111 Minimum Catalog", "R13-B-1321 Balance Sheet", "R13-B-1322 Statement of Results" and "R21-A-2111 Capitalization Requirements for Credit Risk", corresponding to the period between January and July 2017, it is evident that during said period, the net capital of VIDACREDIT was lower than the minimum capital required that it had to maintain according to its level of operations, in contravention of what is provided in articles 48 of the LUC, in relation to what is established in article 18, first paragraph, and fraction I, of the same legal framework.

Likewise, as a result of the analysis of the review of the information contained in the financial statements mentioned in the preceding paragraph, it is evident that during those months the book capital of that Company is lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it, in accordance with what is established in article 18, first paragraph, fraction I, of the LUC, for which it failed to meet the capitalization requirements, in accordance with what is provided in article 48 of said law, being located in the revocation scenario established in fraction XIV of article 97 of the LUC.

In view of the foregoing, this Commission determines that VIDACREDIT is located in the revocation causes provided for in fractions II and XIV of article 97 of the LUC.

2.

VIDACREDIT did not comply with the minimum corrective measures dictated by this Commission, in terms of what is established in article 80 of the LUC.

As a result of the analysis that this Commission carried out on the information contained in the financial statements corresponding to that Company, with figures as of January 31 and February 28, 2017, it was evident that VIDACREDIT failed to meet the capitalization requirements to which it was obligated (net capital and book capital), in accordance with what is provided in article 48 of the LUC, in relation to what is established in article 18, fraction I, of the same legal framework and articles 77 to 83 of the Provisions, for which reason it issued the observation office 132-C/5120/2017, dated May 31, 2017, in which, regarding this matter, the ones marked with paragraphs 1. "Capital contable inferior al capital mínimo requerido en función al nivel de operaciones que le fue autorizado" (Book capital lower than the minimum capital required based on the level of operations that was authorized to it) and 2. "Incumplimiento al límite legal de capital neto" (Non-compliance with the legal limit of net capital) were established, which have been pointed out.

Subsequently, since that Entity did not disprove said observations (in the terms previously established), this Commission issued the actions and corrective measures that were appropriate for the effect (office 132-C/5207/2017, dated July 4, 2017), among which were the minimum corrective measures contemplated in article 80, fraction I of the LUC, consisting of:

a)

Inform its Board of Directors of the causes that motivated the non-compliance with the capitalization requirements, for which they must present a detailed report of integral evaluation on its financial situation, which indicates compliance with the regulatory framework and includes the expression of the main indicators that reflect the degree of stability and solvency of that Company, as well as the observations that, if applicable, this Commission, within the scope of its competence, has directed to it.

b)

Within a term not greater than twenty days, present to the Commission, for its approval, a capital restoration plan that has as a result an increase in net capital, which may contemplate a program of improvement in operational efficiency, rationalization of expenses and increase in profitability, the making of contributions to social capital and limits to the operations that the Company may carry out in compliance with its social object, or to the risks derived from said operations. The capital restoration plan must be approved by the board of directors of VIDACREDIT before being presented to this Decentralized Body.

The Entity must determine in the mentioned capital restoration plan, periodic goals, as well as the term in which the capital of said Company will obtain the level of capitalization required in accordance with the applicable Provisions.

c)

Suspend the payment to shareholders of dividends from VIDACREDIT, as well as any mechanism or act that implies a transfer of patrimonial benefits.

d)

Suspend the payment of compensations and additional extraordinary bonuses to the salary of the general director, as well as not grant new compensations in the future for the general director and officials, until such time as the Company complies with the net capital levels required by this Commission in terms of the Provisions referred to in article 48 of the LUC. This provision must be contained in the contracts and other documentation that regulate the working conditions.

The foregoing will also be applicable regarding payments made to legal entities other than VIDACREDIT, when said legal entities make payments to the officials of that Company.

e)

Refrain from agreeing on increases in the amounts currently in the credits granted to the persons considered as related in terms of article 61 of the LUC.

Regarding which, within the established deadline for such purpose, that Company abstained from making any statement to that effect, omitting to present before this Commission, for its approval, the capital restoration plan that was required of it, as well as the documentation by virtue of which it would have accredited compliance with the other minimum corrective measures dictated to it through the aforementioned notice 132-C/5207/2017, of July 4, 2017, having failed to comply with the capitalization requirements it was obliged to observe, in terms of the applicable legal provisions.

Through notice 132-C/5287/2017, of August 24, 2017, this Commission followed up on the actions and corrective measures dictated to that Company through the different 132-C/5207/2017, of July 4, 2017, reiterating them; it being the case that, through a writing dated September 11, 2017, that Entity stated that "certain measures have been carried out to improve the Union's figures", but without VIDACREDIT having again presented the capital restoration plan that was required of it, as well as the necessary information by which it would have accredited compliance with the minimum corrective measures that were dictated to it.

As a result of the foregoing, this Decentralized Body concludes that VIDACREDIT failed to comply with the minimum corrective measures dictated to it through notice 132-C/5287/2017, of August 24, 2017, and reiterated through the different 132-C/5287/2017, of August 24, 2017, in contravention of what is provided in Article 80, fraction I, of the LUC.

Given this, since that Entity did not comply with the minimum corrective measures that were dictated in terms of what is provided in Article 80, fraction I, of the LUC, this Commission determines that VIDACREDIT falls under the cause for revocation provided in fraction III of Article 97 of the LUC.

3.

Provided this Commission with incomplete financial information.

From the analysis of the content established in notices 132-C/101629/2016, of September 19, 2016 (notice of observations resulting from the review of financial information with figures as of December 31, 2015), and 132-C/5281/2017, of August 24, 2017 (notice of observations resulting from the review of the financial information reported in its financial statements with figures as of December 31, 2016), as well as from the writings of August 25 (manifestations regarding notice 132-C/101629/2016) and September 12 (manifestations in relation to notice 132-C/5281/2017), both of 2017, it emerges that VIDACREDIT provided this Commission with incomplete information, despite the observations issued to that effect by this Institution.

This is so, because as a result of the review that this Commission carried out of the financial information (with figures as of December 31, 2015) that that Company sent to this Institution in compliance with what is established in the applicable legal provisions, it emerged that VIDACREDIT omitted to send various documents, which is why the notice of observations 132-C/101629/2016, of September 19, 2016, was issued, in which the following was established:

" ...

1.

Omission in the sending of audited financial information.

2.

Omission of the publication of the audited financial statements of the 2015 fiscal year.

3.

Omission of sending the board minutes stating the approval of the financial statements of the 2015 fiscal year.

4.

Omission of sending the declaration of officials who sign the audited financial statements of the 2015 fiscal year.

5.

Omission of sending the declaration of the independent external auditor.

6.

Omission of sending the board meeting minutes in which the approval of the hiring of the independent external auditor is stated.

7.

Omission of sending the copy of the audit contract for the 2015 fiscal year.

8.

Omission of sending the opinion, opinions and reports issued by the independent external auditor.

9.

Omission of sending the general report on the progress of business and the opinion of the Comisario for the 2015 fiscal year.

10.

Omission of sending the Minutes of the Ordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of 2015.

11.

Omission of sending the Call for the Ordinary General Meeting of Shareholders.

... "

Regarding these observations, through a writing dated August 25, 2017 (presented in the Common Registry Office of this Institution on the 28th of the same month and year), that Company (in a belated manner), in exercise of the right to be heard that was conferred upon it, stated regarding the observations referred to in numerals 1. to 6., that such documentation "will be sent to that authority as the respective audit is performed, this Union has the commitment to carry out the necessary actions to comply with the sending of periodic financial and administrative information to the National Banking and Securities Commission".

Therefore, from the review of what was sent by that Company with figures as of December 31, 2015, it is concluded that it did not send this Commission the financial information it was obliged to deliver as of that date, in terms of what is established in Articles 19 of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission, 75, 78 and 96 of the LUC. Regardless of the fact that the aforementioned writing was presented belatedly (outside the term granted for such purpose), through it it did not refer to all the information that this Institution pointed out had not been sent and did not attach documentation by virtue of which it complied with the observations that were dictated.

Additionally, through notice 132-C/5281/2017, of August 24, 2017, this Commission communicated to the Entity the missing financial information with figures as of December 31, 2016, consisting of:

" ...

1.

Omission of audited financial statements.

2.

Omission of Publication of financial statements.

3.

Omission of the Report on the progress of business

4.

Omission of Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting.

5.

Omission of Minutes of the General Shareholders' Meeting.

6.

Omission of the Comisario's Opinion.

7.

Omission of the Independent External Auditor's Opinion.

8.

Omission of Publication to the Ordinary General Meeting of Shareholders.

9.

Omission of the declaration of officials who sign the audited financial statements of the 2016 fiscal year.

10.

Omission of the declaration of the independent external auditor.

... "

In response to the aforementioned notice, through a writing dated September 12, 2017 (presented in the Common Registry Office of this Institution on that same date), that Company, in exercise of the right to be heard that was conferred upon it, only stated the following: "Regarding the previous observations 1 to 10, excepting observation number 4, regarding the annual documentation relative to the 2016 fiscal year, I comment that it will be sent to that authority as the respective audit is performed, this Union has the commitment to carry out the necessary actions to comply with the sending of periodic financial and administrative information of the National Banking and Securities Commission".

For this reason, it is evident that that Company did not send this Commission all the financial information it was obliged to deliver (with figures as of December 31, 2016), in terms of what is established in Articles 19 of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission, 75, 78 and 96 of the LUC. Regardless of the fact that it did not attach any documentation to the aforementioned writing by virtue of which it remedied the missing information pointed out in the observations that were dictated to it.

Given this, this Commission concludes that VIDACREDIT, in a repeated manner, provided incomplete financial information to this Commission, which it was obliged to deliver in terms of the applicable legal framework, despite the fact that it was observed and required through notices 132-C/101629/ 2016, of September 19, 2016 and 132-C/5281/2017, of August 24, 2017; without it emerging from what was stated to that effect by that Company in the writings of August 25 and September 12, both of 2017, that that Entity has sent the supporting documentation accrediting having complied with the obligations established in the LUC and in the Regulations; therefore, that Company falls under the cause for revocation provided in fraction IX of Article 97 of the LUC.

On the other hand, it is worth highlighting what was referred to by that Entity in its writing of September 5, 2017, presented in the Common Registry Office of this Commission on the 6th of the same month and year (which was expressly alluded to by that Company in its writing of September 11, 2017 and is referred to on page 11 of the summons notice 212/62414/2018), by which VIDACREDIT informed this Decentralized Body the following:

" This Credit Union, as reported to supervisors during the course of the visit, has had difficulties in improving its growth dynamics due to the concentration of its activities in its reduced group of shareholders, and as is known, it is not an open Credit Union that obtains its funding massively from members who only act as investors unrelated to its operation.

Therefore, the Board of Directors has proposed the need to transform into a Variable Capital Anonymous Society (unregulated entity) because it is considered that, despite the efforts made by the Administration and the Board of Directors to attract new investors and new members, the model of a Credit Union has not been attractive enough and has even resulted in not being the financial model that adapts to the needs of current investors, since what has conditioned the operation of the Union is precisely the limits and particular provisions applicable to this figure, which is not being exploited in its due potential.

Said this, it is my responsibility as General Director of Union de Credito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V. to first, inform about the intention to cease being a regulated entity and transform us into a Variable Capital Anonymous Society; as well as to request in the most attentive manner that you kindly inform us about the procedure that the Union must follow for said transformation.

... "

[Emphasis added]

In such terms, since VIDACREDIT has the "intention to cease being a regulated entity and transform us into a Variable Capital Anonymous Society", it is corroborated that that Company does not have the necessary funds to continue operating and that it will not comply with the ordered capital restoration.

Based on the foregoing, the National Banking and Securities Commission, prior agreement of its Governing Board, taken in its ordinary session held on May 14, 2018, 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 in Articles 97, first paragraph, fractions II, III, IX and XIV, of the Credit Unions Law and 12, fraction V, of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission; as well as in accordance with Agreement Tenth, adopted by the Governing Board of said Commission in its ordinary session held on May 14, 2018, and to the considerations that were exposed in this resolution, revokes the authorization to operate as a credit union granted to Union de Credito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V., through notice 312-1/523714/2006, of December 6, 2006, which was modified through the different 311-12103/2013, of March 7, 2013.

SECOND. From the date of notification of this resolution, Union de Credito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V., is unable to carry out operations and will enter a state of dissolution and liquidation, in accordance with what is provided in Article 99 of the LUC.

THIRD. Based on what is provided in Articles 110, fraction II, of the LUC and 19 of the LCNBV, Union de Credito Vidacredit, S.A. de C.V. must accredit before this Commission, within the term of 60 business days following the publication of this resolution in the Official Gazette of the Federation, the designation of the corresponding liquidator.

FOURTH. Based on what is provided in Article 99 of the LUC, register in the corresponding Public Commerce Registry and publish in the Official Gazette of the Federation this notice.

FIFTH. Based on what is established in the penultimate paragraph of Article 16 of the LCNBV, in Articles 4, fractions I, section B and II, section B, subsection 26), 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; as well as 51 of the Agreement by which the President of the National Banking and Securities Commission delegates Powers to the Vice Presidents, General Directors and Assistant General Directors of said Commission, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on November 30, 2015, updated with the reforms published in said Gazette on December 14, 2016, and in terms of what is ordered in Agreement Twelfth, adopted by the Governing Board of said Commission in its ordinary session held on May 14, 2018, it is delegated indistinctly in the public servants of this Commission, Karla Patricia Montoya Gutiérrez, María Isabel Almaráz Guzmán, Josué Martínez Rocha, Angel Jonathan García Romo, Melissa Fernanda Portillo Valdepeña, José Luis García González, Saúl Hernández Pérez, Ivonne Marcela López Franco, Manuel Erwin Vásquez Rafael, Alberto Erick Méndez Medina, Juan Carlos Macías Luna, Luis Antonio Rodríguez Rodríguez, José Alberto Jiménez Rosales, Rogelio García Martínez, Rosa Cristina Avalos Gutiérrez, David Rodrigo Mejía Ríos, Lourdes Andrea Chavero Gaitan, Cesar Javier Jiménez Ramírez, José Luis Moreno Martínez, Tania Patricia Morales Reyes, Mariana Cecilia Luna Rivera and Francisco Godínez Ayala, the charge of notifying, jointly or separately, this notice through which compliance with the agreement adopted by the Governing Board of said Commission is given.

The foregoing is made known to you based on what is provided in Articles 16, fraction VI, and penultimate paragraph, of the Law of the National Banking and Securities Commission and 12 of the Internal Regulations of the National Banking and Securities Commission, as well as in terms of Agreement Eleventh, adopted by the Governing Board of said Commission in its ordinary session held on May 14, 2018.

This was provided by the President of the National Banking and Securities Commission and signed in substitution for his absence by the Legal Vice President of the National Banking and Securities Commission, based on what is provided in Articles 4, fraction I, section A, fraction II, section A, subsection 7), 12 and 54 of the Internal Regulations of the National Banking and Securities Commission.

Respectfully,

Mexico City, May 21, 2018. - The Legal Vice President, 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.

CONSULT

BY DATE

Do
Lu
Ma
Mi
Ju
Vi
Sá
INDICATORS

Exchange Rate and Rates as of 29/08/2026

UDIS

8.809369

See more

SURVEYS

Did you like the new image 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 service menu

Electronic address: dof.gob.mx

113

LEGAL NOTICE | SOME RIGHTS RESERVED © 2026