Without a prior hearing, but not without a strategy: implications of judicial access to corporate information

• Executive Summary

On June 16, 2026, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved the amparo in review 129/2026, determining that articles 1151, section IV, and 1156 of the Commercial Code do not violate the constitutional guarantees of hearing and legal certainty.

With this, it validated that a partner can request, as a preparatory means to a commercial trial, the exhibition of documents and accounts of a company, even summarily and without prior hearing of the counterparty.

This criterion has relevant implications for companies, because a judicial request for corporate information can be the prelude to a dispute between partners, an action against administrators or a dispute over the management of the company.

In practice, the challenge lies not only in attending to the due diligence, but in understanding its potential litigious scope, protecting sensitive information, and evaluating the strategy in the face of a possible subsequent lawsuit.

• The case: the request for corporate information before the trial

The matter arose from a request by a partner who asked for the display of accounting and corporate information of the company corresponding to various fiscal years, including financial statements, account statements, tax returns, payroll records, corporate books and documents related to real estate of the company.

The partner maintained that he had not had access to that information nor received any profits, and therefore sought to gather evidence to promote a possible commercial lawsuit related to the management of the company.

The court granted the request and ordered the production of the documents without a prior hearing for the company. In response, one of the individuals summoned filed an objection, which was dismissed because the Commercial Code does not provide for such a defense in this specific case.

The controversy reached the Supreme Court with a specific question: whether articles 1151, section IV, and 1156 of the Commercial Code violate the constitutional guarantees of hearing and legal certainty by regulating these preparatory means to commercial trial.

• What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Court held that these preparatory measures serve a verification function. Their purpose is not to resolve the merits of a dispute, impose a sentence, or declare any liability, but rather to facilitate the partner's examination of company documents and accounts to obtain information that could be relevant in a future lawsuit.

Therefore, he considered that the lack of a prior hearing does not violate the right to a hearing or legal certainty. In his reasoning, the company does not lose its documents nor is it permanently deprived of a right; it is merely ordered to provisionally present information to a judicial authority.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the procedure is not automatic; the applicant must state the reason for the measure, indicate the lawsuit he intends to prepare, and prove his status as a partner.

The ruling also recognizes that the shareholder's right to information plays a significant role in corporate life. This right allows shareholders to review documentation related to the company's management and, where appropriate, gather information to prepare for future legal action, including potential liability claims against directors. 

• The practical consequence: compliance does not mean delivery without control.

From the company's perspective, the risk lies not only in the due diligence process itself, but also in what may follow. A request for documents and accounts can reveal a developing corporate conflict, such as claims for profits, challenges to management decisions, contests on corporate agreements, or liability lawsuits.

The company must comply with the court order, but also carefully review its scope. The information provided must correspond to the purpose of the proceedings, the requested period, and the legal action being prepared.

Compliance does not mean relinquishing control over the form, scope, and conditions of the exhibition.

• Implications for the company: document organization, confidentiality, and strategy

This criterion requires looking at requests for corporate information from a broader perspective than that of formal compliance.

If the procedure can be ordered without a prior hearing, the critical point is no longer solely in discussing whether the company will be heard before the exhibition, but in understanding that the corporate and accounting documentation can become the starting point of a subsequent controversy.

From a business perspective, the regularity of corporate records is especially important. Minutes of meetings, corporate books, reports from the board of directors, reports from the auditor, financial statements, tax returns, and supporting documentation not only serve an internal function; they can also be reviewed in a legal context and serve to explain the actions of the company and its governing bodies.

The protection of sensitive information is also of paramount importance. Accounting documentation may contain personal data, banking information, terms and conditions with clients or suppliers, business strategies, sensitive tax information, or data that could affect the company's competitive position.

Therefore, although the ruling strengthens the partner's right to information, this should not be confused with an authorization for the exhibition to be carried out without parameters of proportionality, confidentiality and relation to the trial that is intended to be prepared.

In our opinion, the greatest impact of the criterion is not in the preparatory diligence itself, but in the way in which it can modify the dynamics of the corporate conflict.

A broad request for information can reveal tensions between partners, questions about management, disagreements about profits, or possible claims against administrators and auditors.

In that context, each case will require assessing the scope of the court order, the nature of the information required, the risks to confidentiality, and the potential for substantive litigation.

• Conclusion

The criterion adopted by the Supreme Court not only confirms the constitutionality of the preparatory means provided for in the Commercial Code, but also requires rethinking the way in which companies understand judicial access to their corporate and accounting information.

In this new scenario, a document production order should not be viewed as an isolated incident. The information produced can become the basis for subsequent claims regarding management, profits, conflicts of interest, or liability to shareholders.

At the same time, the criterion reinforces the importance of the company keeping its corporate books, minutes of meetings, reports of administrators and commissioners, financial statements and supporting documentation for its main decisions in order.

The regularity of this documentation ceases to be a merely formal matter and can become a determining factor for the defense of the interests of the company, its administrators, directors and commissioners.

Therefore, handling court-ordered requests for corporate information requires a case-by-case analysis of the scope of the order, the nature of the information requested, potential confidentiality risks, and the strategy to address possible litigation between shareholders. Our dispute resolution team can assist you in this assessment and in defining an appropriate strategy to protect your company's interests.