By means of Resolution 1520 of October 6, 2026, the office of the Deputy Superintendent for Insurance of the Financial Superintendence of Colombia (hereinafter, the “SFC”) imposed a reprimand on an insurance company for failing to evidence the minimum operating capital required by Article 80 of the Organic Statute of the Financial System (hereinafter, the “EOSF”).
The investigation began because the insurance company transmitted Form 292 and reported a shortfall in its minimum capital for two consecutive months. The shortfall originated in the annual adjustment of the minimum capital for 2024 inflation (5.2%), since the insurance company did not have sufficient profits to cover the mentioned annual increase.
In its defense, the insurance company argued that:
- The adjustment was only required as of February, because the annual CPI update was published on January 9, 2025.
- It acted with diligence by requesting the cancellation of one of its lines of business to release capital, but the procedure was delayed because the statutory auditor did not deliver the required certification on time.
- It was unable to capitalize itself because the heirs of a deceased shareholder were unable to reach an agreement, which prevented gathering the quorum to carry out a by-law amendment.
The SFC rejected these arguments and concluded that the insurance company breached paragraph 4 of Article 80 of the EOSF, taking into account the following considerations:
The insurance activity is of public interest and the SFC exercises an administrative police function
The SFC recalled that the insurance activity is of public interest and that, in the exercise of its supervisory functions, it verifies compliance with the economic and prudential rules applicable to supervised entities.
In this context, it highlighted the permanent obligation to evidence the minimum operating capital, given that it constitutes an essential mechanism to guarantee the solvency of insurance companies and the protection of the third parties that contract with them; the SFC set this out as follows:
“In accordance with the foregoing, this superintendence, in fulfillment of its objectives, in general, carries out an administrative police function that seeks to verify compliance with the set of mandatory economic and prudential rules provided with respect to supervised institutions, in order to ensure fluidity in the payment system, the very stability of the institutions, and that the rights of private parties are not infringed.”
(…)
“As a consequence of the foregoing, supervised entities have the obligation to give strict, permanent, and timely compliance to the rules that govern their activity, especially if they are rules related to legal requirements, such as evidencing (permanently) the required minimum capital, which have as their main purpose guaranteeing the solvency of the entities as well as serving as backing for the third parties with whom they have a commercial relationship.” (Underlining and bold not in the original text).
The minimum capital must be complied with permanently and is evidenced by means of Form 292
The SFC recalled that paragraph 4 of Article 80 of the EOSF requires that the minimum capital be complied with permanently, not only at the time the insurance company is incorporated. To evidence such compliance, insurance companies must submit Form 292 to the SFC on a monthly basis:
“In order to comply with the precept contained in the aforementioned paragraph 4 of Article 80 of the cited statute and thus evidence permanent compliance with the minimum operating capital, insurance companies must submit to this Superintendence, on a monthly basis, Form 292 -Minimum operating capital-.” (Underlining and bold not in the original text).
The annual adjustment of the minimum capital is required as of January of each year
The SFC clarified that, according to Article 80 of the EOSF, the minimum capital is adjusted automatically each year, based on the CPI of the previous year, and that such adjustment is required as of January. Therefore, the insurance company had to comply with the new amount as of the January cut-off, not as of February.
Furthermore, the insurance company itself had applied that methodology when completing the January Form 292, so it could not disregard the interpretation of the rule:
“(...) this methodology for calculating the minimum amount of capital for its operation has been implemented since 2003, being applicable in the month of January of each year.”
(…)
“(...) [the insurance company] cannot state that ‘the adjustment must be required only in the financial statements corresponding to the accounting close of February of the corresponding year,’ since under the accrual accounting principle, economic events are recorded at the time of their occurrence or the generation of their effects (...)” (Underlining and bold not in the original text).
The statutory auditor’s delay is not an event outside the insurance company’s control
The SFC explained that the insurance company and its statutory auditor must work in a coordinated manner, because both form part of the entity’s lines of defense and risk management.
The requirements to revoke the authorization to operate a line of insurance business are published by the SFC and are known by supervised entities. Therefore, the delay in obtaining the statutory auditor’s certification cannot be attributed solely to a third party:
“For this reason, the cancellation procedure itself cannot be alleged as a factor outside the control of [the insurance company], since obtaining the documentation to meet the minimum requirements of the procedure is part of the responsibilities of senior management, mainly of the legal representative (...)” (Underlining and bold not in the original text).