IDC and SIS vs. Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (Nullity of CVM Resolution 244/2026)

On June 8, 2026, the Institute of Collective Law (IDC) and the Association for Inclusive Sustainable Solutions (SIS) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for urgent relief against the Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM), due to the issuance of CVM Resolution 244/2026, which revoked the mandatory disclosure of financial information related to sustainability previously provided for in CVM Resolution 193/2023. They argued that the previous rule was based on the scientific consensus that climate change already has concrete effects, including financial risks. In this context, the state adopted the ISSB/IFRS S1 and S2 standards for sustainability financial reporting by publicly traded companies, including greenhouse gas emissions inventories, identification of physical and transitional climate risks, mitigation strategies, climate-related corporate governance, and analysis of the financial impacts of climate change, with a transition regime with voluntary adherence in the fiscal years 2024 and 2025 and mandatory compliance from 2026 onwards. Plaintiffs argued that the regulatory change represents a serious regulatory and environmental setback, as it weakens access to essential information about the environmental, climate, and social risks associated with the activities of publicly traded companies, compromising the adequate pricing of these risks by the market and the ability of investors to direct capital to activities compatible with a resilient and low-carbon economy. They contend that the revocation of the mandatory requirements stipulated in the previous resolution occurred without adequate technical justification, without a regulatory impact analysis, and in contradiction to the previous opinion of the CVM's own technical area; which had recognized the relevance of the measure for market transparency, the management of climate risks, and Brazil's alignment with international best practices. The authors allege that the suppression of mandatory sustainability disclosure generates collective damage of a climate and informational nature, as it reduces the availability of reliable and comparable data on the impacts of business activities on the climate, increases informational asymmetry between companies and investors, favors greenwashing practices, and hinders the identification of companies more exposed to or prepared for the effects of climate change. They also argue that the measure violates Brazil's international commitments, such as those undertaken under the Paris Agreement and the Mercosur-European Union Partnership Agreement. Additionally, they claim that it also compromises the integrity of the capital market, penalizes companies that had already invested in implementing international sustainability standards, and weakens essential instruments for climate governance, such as the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (SBCE). Therefore, the plaintiffs request the granting of urgent relief to immediately suspend the effects of CVM Resolution 244/2026, restoring the mandatory reporting of sustainability information as provided for in CVM Resolution 193/2023. In the final relief they seek a declaration of nullity of CVM Resolution 244/2026, due to flaws in its motivation, procedure, and violation of the principles of environmental protection and legal certainty; or, subsidiarily, a declaration of its illegality and that the CVM be ordered to conduct a public consultation and Regulatory Impact Analysis on the effects of Resolution 244, with suspension of its effectiveness during this process. In a preliminary ruling made on June 12, 2026, the court denied the request for urgent relief, finding that the requirements for granting it were not met. It reasoned that the controversy has a high degree of legal, regulatory, economic, and institutional complexity, requiring in-depth evidentiary proceedings and prior input from the defendant agency, especially given the measure's impact on the regulated market. It emphasized that the alleged climate and socio-environmental damages were presented in a predominantly abstract and prospective manner, lacking concrete and individualized evidence of irreparable harm or imminent risk to the useful outcome of the process. The CVM (Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission) filed a response, initially arguing the inadequacy of the chosen legal avenue, on the grounds that a public civil action is not suitable for the abstract control of the legality or constitutionality of normative acts. On the merits, it maintained the regularity of the issuance of CVM Resolution 244/2026, stating that the act was approved by the competent Board, observing the legal and regulatory quorum, and was preceded by technical studies and included in the regulatory agenda of the Authority. It further defended the legitimacy of the initial waiver of Regulatory Impact Analysis and specific public consultation, as well as the CVM's technical discretion to define the model for disclosing sustainability information, for which reason it requested the dismissal of the case without prejudice or, alternatively, the dismissal of the claims.