The legal architecture of Latin American post-trial access: SDEA, DPA, product liability, sponsor accession

A Latin American post-trial access (PTA) program is a regulatory filing wrapped in four contracts. The filing is the visible part — an ANMAT import expediente, an ANVISA ofício, a DIGEMID authorization. The four contracts are what determine who answers to a regulator, who answers to a patient, and who answers to a plaintiff’s lawyer three years after the last shipment.

Those four instruments are a Safety Data Exchange Agreement, a country-specific Data Processing Agreement, a product-liability allocation, and — the one most often missing — a sponsor accession mechanism that binds the marketing-authorization holder to the same schedules the operator signed. This piece sets out how we paper each of them and the five architectural mistakes that recur in draft PTA agreements we review.

Why the paperwork carries more weight than the filing

In nine Latin American jurisdictions the continued-supply duty is statutory and sits on the sponsor. Brazil’s Lei nº 14.874/2024 Art. 31 §4 states that “o fornecimento do medicamento será de responsabilidade do patrocinador,” and Art. 33 inciso VI releases the sponsor only five years after commercial availability in Brazil. Chile’s Código Sanitario Art. 111 C, inserted by Art. 34 of Ley 20.850, attaches the free-supply duty to the holder of the provisional-use authorization and then to the sanitary-registration holder — including a successor that acquired the registration later. Peru’s DS 021-2017-SA Art. 40(p) and Art. 89 put both the access duty and the funding on the sponsor. Panama’s Decreto Ejecutivo 21/2026 Art. 68 (Gaceta Oficial Digital 30510-C, 23 April 2026, which reglamentates Titles III and IV of Ley 84 de 14 de mayo de 2019) names investigadores y patrocinadores as co-obligors.

None of those statutes names an operator, an importadora, or a managed-access vendor. The obligation is the sponsor’s by law. Everything the operator does — the import authorization under Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016 Art. 4, the cold-chain leg, the pharmacovigilance intake — is performed on behalf of an obligor that remains the obligor. If the contract does not say so with precision, the operator has effectively assumed a statutory duty it has no legal standing to discharge.

Pillar 1: the Safety Data Exchange Agreement

The SDEA is the instrument that connects local adverse-event intake to the sponsor’s global pharmacovigilance system. It should be executed within 30 days of the Work Order, not left to a later “PV annex to follow.”

Three ICH guidelines set the substance. ICH E2A fixes the expedited-reporting clock: fatal or life-threatening unexpected adverse drug reactions require notification “as soon as possible but no later than 7 calendar days after first knowledge by the sponsor,” followed by a fuller report “within 8 additional calendar days” (§III.B.1), while all other serious unexpected ADRs run on a 15-calendar-day clock (§III.B.2). Because the clock starts on sponsor knowledge, the SDEA must set an internal onward-transmission deadline for the local operator that is materially shorter — otherwise the sponsor’s regulatory clock is being consumed by the operator’s intake queue. ICH E2F governs periodic reporting: the DSUR is an annual report with a data lock point on “the last day of the one-year reporting period” and submission “no later than 60 calendar days after the DSUR data lock point” (§2.2), so the SDEA must specify who supplies PTA-cohort line listings into that cycle and by when. ICH E3 §12 sets the safety-evaluation structure the underlying trial report already follows, which is the format PTA safety data should feed into rather than a parallel one.

Practical drafting points: name the sponsor’s global PV mailbox and the operator’s PV contact by role, define the reconciliation cadence, and state expressly that regulatory reporting to the local authority is the sponsor’s obligation performed through the operator as agent, with the operator’s duty limited to timely, accurate onward transmission.

Pillar 2: the Data Processing Agreement — country by country

There is no single Latin American data-protection instrument, so there is no single DPA. The controlling article set changes by jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction	Instrument	Transfer article	Notes for PTA drafting
Argentina	Ley 25.326	Art. 12(1)–(2)	Transfer to countries without adequate protection is prohibited; Art. 12(2)(b) carves out medical-data exchange where the affected person’s treatment requires it. Art. 11(4) makes the transferee subject to the transferor’s obligations and imposes joint liability.
Argentina (clauses)	AAIP Resolución 198/2023	Anexo I	Approves two model clause sets: responsable–responsable and responsable–encargado. Use the latter where the operator processes only on sponsor instruction (Cláusula 6.1).
Brazil	Lei nº 13.709/2018 (LGPD)	Arts. 33–36	Art. 33 II(a)–(b) permits transfer on specific or standard contractual clauses; Art. 33 VIII permits it on specific, highlighted consent distinguished from other purposes.
Mexico	LFPDPPP (DOF 20 March 2025)	Arts. 35–36	Health data is sensitive (Art. 2 fr. VI) and requires express written consent (Art. 8). Art. 36 fr. II exempts transfers necessary for medical treatment or health-service management.
Chile	Ley 19.628 → Ley 21.719	Art. 10 → Arts. 27–29	Ley 21.719 was published 13 December 2024 and enters into force 1 December 2026. Any Chilean PTA DPA signed now should be drafted to the Arts. 27–29 transfer regime, not only to Ley 19.628 Art. 10.
Peru	DS 016-2024-JUS (Reglamento, Ley 29733)	Arts. 18–20	In force 120 calendar days after publication (31 March 2025). Art. 20.1 permits model contractual clauses imposing “cuando menos las mismas obligaciones” on the importer.
Colombia	Ley Estatutaria 1581 de 2012	Art. 26	Health data is sensitive (Art. 5); Art. 26(b) carves out medical-data exchange required by the data subject’s treatment. Otherwise the SIC issues a declaración de conformidad (Art. 26, par. 1).

The operator-side drafting position is the same everywhere: the sponsor is responsable/controller, the operator is encargado/operator, processing is limited to documented instructions, sub-processing requires prior written consent, and the operator returns or deletes on termination subject to statutory retention. Where the destination country has no adequacy finding, attach the applicable model clauses as a schedule rather than describing them in the body.

The Argentina adequacy mistake

The most common error in Argentine PTA drafting is treating Commission Decision 2003/490/EC as if it authorised outbound transfers from Argentina. Article 1 reads: “Argentina is regarded as providing an adequate level of protection for personal data transferred from the Community.” Article 2 confines the decision to adequacy in Argentina “with a view to meeting the requirements of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC.” The instrument is unidirectional — EU to Argentina.

A PTA data flow from Argentine sites to a sponsor in the United States, or to an access vendor in the Netherlands, is an Argentine outbound transfer governed by Ley 25.326 Art. 12, and the correct instrument is the AAIP responsable–encargado model agreement under Resolución 198/2023, not a citation to the 2003 decision. Treating the adequacy finding as reciprocal is a defect that survives review because it looks like a considered legal position.

Pillar 3: product liability sits with the sponsor

The operator is not the manufacturer, does not hold the marketing authorization, and cannot practically bear product-liability risk for the product itself. A managed-access or expanded-access vendor is in the same position. Neither controls design, manufacture, batch release, labelling content, or the safety profile — so neither can defend a product claim on the merits or insure it economically.

Our drafting position, and the position we recommend to any operator in this role:

• The sponsor or titular defends and indemnifies the operator against third-party claims arising from the product itself, including design, manufacture, and labelling defects.
• The sponsor maintains product-liability insurance covering the PTA territories for the duration of the program plus a tail, and provides certificates on request.
• The operator’s liability cap covers operator services only. Product liability sits outside the cap.
• Carve-outs outside the cap in both directions: gross negligence, wilful misconduct, breach of confidentiality, intellectual-property infringement, and breach of data-protection obligations.

The cap itself is negotiable, usually expressed against fees paid under the Work Order over a defined lookback. Its composition is not: a cap that silently absorbs product liability converts a services agreement into an uninsured product warranty.

Pillar 4: sponsor accession as a condition precedent

Because the sponsor holds the statutory supply duty, the product liability, the marketing authorization, and the primary pharmacovigilance obligation, an operator’s Work Order should be conditioned on sponsor accession. Two mechanisms work:

1. Direct accession — the sponsor executes a short accession instrument to the schedules that allocate safety data exchange, data processing, and liability (in our template set, schedules C, E and F).
2. Tripartite side letter — the sponsor, the access vendor or intermediary, and the operator sign a single side letter confirming the sponsor’s indemnity, insurance, PV ownership, and patient-continuity funding, with the underlying Work Order otherwise unchanged.

Either way the Work Order should not become effective until accession is signed. Without it, the operator holds a services contract with a counterparty that cannot deliver the indemnity the contract assumes, and the patient-continuity commitment has no funded obligor behind it.

Five architectural mistakes we see repeatedly

1. No sponsor accession condition. The operator signs with an intermediary and inherits an unfunded, uninsurable duty.
2. Product liability inside the operator’s cap. Structurally wrong for a non-manufacturer.
3. The reciprocal-adequacy error. Argentina→US or Argentina→NL flows papered as if Decision 2003/490/EC covered them.
4. No patient-continuity run-off. Termination should trigger a defined run-off — our default is 90 days — during which supply, PV intake, and cold-chain continue at the sponsor’s cost.
5. No sponsor-funded continuity trigger. If the sponsor terminates the program or the access vendor disengages, the continuity obligation must be expressly sponsor-funded, or patients absorb the commercial dispute.

Governing law, dispute resolution, and pre-send gates

For cross-border PTA services agreements with a US-headquartered operator, Delaware law with AAA-ICDR arbitration seated in New York is a sensible default: neutral to the LATAM performance jurisdictions, familiar to sponsor counsel, and enforceable across the region under the New York Convention. Local-law carve-outs remain necessary for the statutory duties themselves, which are not contractible away.

Before any PTA agreement leaves our desk it passes four gates: (1) a counsel memo verifying the regulatory framework and article citations for each performance jurisdiction; (2) named performing entities, including the habilitada local entity and the importadora of record; (3) sponsor accession path agreed in principle, in writing, before signature; and (4) harmonized statutory-obligation language, so that the same duty is not described one way in the recitals and another way in the schedules.

Frequently asked questions

What legal architecture does a LATAM post-trial access program require?
Four instruments beyond the services agreement itself: a Safety Data Exchange Agreement connecting local adverse-event intake to the sponsor’s global pharmacovigilance system; a country-specific Data Processing Agreement built on the applicable transfer article (Argentina Ley 25.326 Art. 12, Brazil LGPD Arts. 33–36, Colombia Ley 1581 Art. 26, and so on); a product-liability allocation placing defence, indemnity, and insurance on the sponsor or titular; and a sponsor accession mechanism binding the marketing-authorization holder to those schedules. The regulatory filing — import authorization, ethics submission — is separate and downstream.

What is a Safety Data Exchange Agreement (SDEA) in PTA?
An SDEA is the bilateral agreement that defines how safety information moves from the PTA site and local operator into the sponsor’s global pharmacovigilance system. It should be executed within 30 days of the Work Order and built on ICH principles: ICH E2A §III.B for the 7-day and 15-calendar-day expedited-reporting clocks, ICH E2F §2.2 for annual DSUR periodicity and the 60-day post-data-lock-point submission window, and ICH E3 §12 for the safety-evaluation structure the data must fit. It names PV contacts, sets onward-transmission deadlines shorter than the sponsor’s regulatory clock, and fixes a reconciliation cadence.

What is a Data Processing Agreement (DPA) in Argentine PTA?
It is the instrument that makes an Argentine PTA data flow lawful under Ley 25.326. Art. 12(1) prohibits transfer to countries or organisations that do not provide adequate protection levels, and Art. 11(4) makes the transferee subject to the transferor’s obligations with joint liability. Where the sponsor sits in a country without an Argentine adequacy finding, the practical route is the responsable–encargado model agreement approved by AAIP Resolución 198/2023, attached as a schedule. Cláusula 6.1 limits the importer to the exporter’s documented instructions, with no decision-making power over scope or content.

Does EU Commission Decision 2003/490/EC cover Argentina→US or Argentina→EU data flows?
No. Article 1 of Decision 2003/490/EC regards Argentina as adequate for “personal data transferred from the Community,” and Article 2 limits the decision to adequacy in Argentina for the purposes of Article 25(1) of Directive 95/46/EC. The decision is unidirectional: EU to Argentina. An outbound transfer from Argentine sites to a US sponsor or a Dutch access vendor is governed by Ley 25.326 Art. 12 and requires its own adequacy basis, statutory exception, or model clauses. Article 3 of the decision, in fact, gives EU authorities power to suspend flows to recipients in Argentina — the opposite of a reciprocal permission.

Who bears product liability in a PTA program — the sponsor, the manufacturer, or the operator?
The sponsor or the titular of the marketing authorization. The operator is not the manufacturer, does not hold the authorization, and does not control design, manufacture, batch release, or labelling — so it cannot defend a product claim on the merits or insure it at a rational price. The correct architecture has the sponsor defend and indemnify the operator for product-related third-party claims, maintain product-liability insurance covering the PTA territories for the program term plus a tail, and accept that product liability sits outside the operator’s services liability cap.

Why should PTA operators condition the Work Order on sponsor accession?
Because the sponsor holds every obligation the Work Order depends on: the statutory continued-supply duty, the marketing authorization, primary pharmacovigilance responsibility, product liability, and the funding for patient continuity. An operator that contracts only with an intermediary holds an indemnity from a party that does not control the product and a continuity commitment with no funded obligor. Making accession a condition precedent — rather than a post-signature action item — is the only reliable way to ensure the risk allocation in the schedules is enforceable against the party that can actually perform it.

What is a tripartite side letter in LATAM PTA?
A single short instrument signed by the sponsor, the access vendor or intermediary, and the local operator, used where the sponsor will not accede directly to the operator’s schedules. It confirms four things: the sponsor’s defence and indemnity for product-related claims; the sponsor’s product-liability insurance covering the PTA territories; sponsor ownership of primary pharmacovigilance and regulatory reporting; and sponsor funding of patient continuity, including any run-off period. It leaves the underlying Work Order commercial terms untouched, which is usually why it is the faster path to signature.

What is the standard liability cap in a LATAM PTA Work Order?
There is no single market standard, and any figure quoted as one should be treated with suspicion. Caps are typically expressed as a ceiling tied to fees paid under the Work Order over a defined lookback period. The more consequential negotiation is not the number but the composition — what the cap covers and what sits outside it. A cap that quietly includes product liability turns a services agreement into an uninsured product warranty, which is a worse outcome for the operator than a low number with clean carve-outs.

What carve-outs should sit outside the liability cap?
Five, in both directions: gross negligence, wilful misconduct, breach of confidentiality, intellectual-property infringement, and breach of data-protection obligations. Product liability should also sit outside the operator’s cap, because the operator is not the manufacturer. Data-protection breach deserves particular attention in Latin America: Argentina’s Ley 25.326 Art. 11(4) imposes joint liability between transferor and transferee, and Mexico’s LFPDPPP Art. 59 fr. IV allows sanctions for sensitive-data infractions to be increased up to twofold, so capped data-protection exposure can be materially lower than actual statutory exposure.

What is the standard patient-continuity run-off period?
Our default drafting position is 90 days from the effective date of termination. During that window, product supply, pharmacovigilance intake, and cold-chain and importation services continue at the sponsor’s cost while the sponsor arranges an alternative route — a successor operator, an extension study, or transition into commercial or public-system supply. The reason to fix a defined period rather than “a reasonable transition” is that the statutory obligations do not pause: Brazil’s Lei 14.874/2024 Art. 33 lists exhaustive interruption grounds, and contract termination between a sponsor and its operator is not one of them.

Should managed-access-program specialists require sponsor accession too?
Yes, and for the same structural reason. A managed-access or expanded-access specialist occupies the same position as a regional operator: it is not the manufacturer, does not hold the marketing authorization, and cannot bear product-liability risk for the product. Whether the intermediary is a global access platform, a specialty distributor, or a regional CRO, the party with the statutory supply duty and the insurable product risk is the sponsor. Any access architecture that leaves the sponsor outside the contractual chain has a gap at exactly the point where a patient-harm claim would land.

Working on a LATAM post-trial access program? bioaccess® is a US-headquartered, LATAM-native operator running regulatory, importadora, and 2–8 °C GDP cold-chain functions directly across the region. If you’re evaluating PTA feasibility in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Panama, Mexico or Colombia, contact Julio Martinez-Clark, Co-Founder & CEO, at jmclark@bioaccessla.com or +1 (954) 903-7210. More at bioaccessla.com/roadmap.

Sources

• ICH E2A, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting — https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2A_Guideline.pdf
• ICH E2F, Development Safety Update Report — https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E2F_Guideline.pdf
• ICH E3, Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports — https://database.ich.org/sites/default/files/E3_Guideline.pdf
• Commission Decision 2003/490/EC of 30 June 2003 (Argentina adequacy) — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32003D0490
• Argentina, Ley 25.326 (Protección de los Datos Personales) — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/60000-64999/64790/texact.htm
• Argentina, AAIP Resolución 198/2023 (RESOL-2023-198-APN-AAIP, BO 18/10/2023), model international-transfer clauses — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/390000-394999/391538/norma.htm
• Argentina, AAIP Resolución 198/2023 Anexo I (IF-2023-108581614-APN-DNPDP#AAIP) — https://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/390000-394999/391538/res198.pdf
• Argentina, Disposición ANMAT 12792/2016 (post-study import procedure) — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/154162/20161117
• Argentina, Disposición ANMAT 7516/2025 (GCP, in force 1 December 2025) — https://www.boletinoficial.gob.ar/detalleAviso/primera/332695/20251009
• Brazil, Lei nº 13.709/2018 (LGPD) — https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/lei/l13709.htm
• Brazil, Lei nº 14.874/2024, Arts. 30–37 — https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l14874.htm
• Brazil, Decreto nº 12.651/2025, Art. 31 — https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/2025/decreto-12651-7-outubro-2025-798105-publicacaooriginal-176652-pe.html
• Mexico, Ley Federal de Protección de Datos Personales en Posesión de los Particulares (DOF 20 March 2025; last reform DOF 14 November 2025) — https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFPDPPP.pdf
• Chile, Ley 19.628 sobre Protección de la Vida Privada — https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=141599
• Chile, Ley 21.719 (published 13 December 2024; in force 1 December 2026) — https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1209272
• Chile, Ley 20.850 and Código Sanitario Art. 111 C — https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1078148
• Peru, Decreto Supremo N° 016-2024-JUS (Reglamento de la Ley 29733) — https://www.gob.pe/institucion/anpd/normas-legales/6554453-16-2024-jus
• Peru, Reglamento de Ensayos Clínicos, DS 021-2017-SA, Arts. 115–118 — https://ensayosclinicos-repec.ins.gob.pe/images/Reglamento_de_EC.pdf
• Colombia, Ley Estatutaria 1581 de 2012 — https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=49981
• Panama, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 21 de 23 de abril de 2026, Art. 68, Gaceta Oficial Digital No. 30510-C (primary-source Gaceta PDF, read 6 September 2026)