Chile’s Supreme Court has overturned two rulings of the country’s competition tribunal concerning alleged interlocking directorates, dealing a setback to the National Economic Prosecutor’s Office (FNE). The decisions reverse judgments issued by the Tribunal for the Defense of Free Competition (TDLC) in April and June 2025 and dismiss the enforcement actions originally filed in December 2021.
The cases concerned overlapping board memberships among major Chilean financial groups. In the first case, the FNE accused businessman Juan Hurtado Vicuña of simultaneously serving as a director of Consorcio and Larraín Vial. The authority argued that the two financial groups competed through their subsidiaries, particularly in securities brokerage and related financial services. In April 2025, the TDLC agreed and imposed fines on Hurtado, Consorcio and Larraín Vial, reasoning that the parent companies exercised decisive influence over their operating subsidiaries and therefore should be treated as competing firms.
The second case involved Banco de Chile and Consorcio and focused on the simultaneous board participation of Hernán Büchi. Büchi also served on the board of Falabella, and the TDLC concluded that these overlapping positions created prohibited interlocking relationships among competing firms in several markets. During the proceedings, Büchi and Falabella settled with the FNE through agreements approved by the tribunal.
In rulings issued on 2 March 2026, however, the Supreme Court rejected the tribunal’s interpretation of the law and dismissed the complaints. The Court held that the prohibition on interlocking directorates under Chilean competition law applies only to the natural person who holds the overlapping position as director or relevant executive. In the Court’s view, the provision does not allow sanctions to be imposed on the companies themselves.
The Court also disagreed with the TDLC’s approach to defining competing firms. It concluded that the parent companies where Hurtado and Büchi served as directors could not be considered competitors simply because their subsidiaries operated in the same markets. Since the relevant entities were holding companies rather than direct market participants, the legal conditions for the specific interlocking offence were not met.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the conduct at issue could still be assessed under the general prohibition of anticompetitive conduct if it were shown to harm or threaten competition in a relevant market. The rulings therefore narrow the scope of the specific interlocking rule while leaving open the possibility of enforcement under broader competition law provisions.