Category: ESG
Dubious en banc Fifth Circuit hears oral argument on Nasdaq board diversity rules
In August 2021, the SEC approved a Nasdaq proposal for new listing rules regarding board diversity and disclosure, accompanied by a proposal to provide free access to a board recruiting service. The new listing rules adopted a “comply or explain” mandate for board diversity for most listed companies and required companies listed on Nasdaq’s U.S. exchange to publicly disclose “consistent, transparent diversity statistics” regarding the composition of their boards. (See this PubCo post.) It didn’t take long for a court challenge to these rules to materialize: the Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment and, later, the National Center for Public Policy Research petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals—the Alliance has its principal place of business in Texas—for review of the SEC’s final order approving the Nasdaq rule. (See this PubCo post and this PubCo post) In October 2023, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied those petitions, in effect upholding Nasdaq’s board diversity listing rules. Given that, by repute, the Fifth Circuit is the circuit of choice for advocates of conservative causes, the decision to deny the petition may have taken some by surprise—unless, that is, they were aware, as discussed in the WSJ and Reuters, that the three judges on this panel happened to all be appointed by Democrats. Petitioners then filed a petition requesting a rehearing en banc by the Fifth Circuit, where Republican presidents have appointed 12 of the 16 active judges. (See this PubCo post.) Not that politics has anything to do with it, of course. That petition for rehearing en banc was granted, vacating the opinion of the lower court. Yesterday, oral argument was heard. Let’s just say that, while some points were made in support of the rule, the discussion seemed to be dominated by rule skeptics. But the feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar did figure in the discussion. Some highlights below.
Cooley Alert: EU Adopts Mandatory Rules on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
In late April, the European Parliament voted to adopt the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which will apply to EU companies and to non-EU companies with activities in the EU that meet specified thresholds. A discussed in this new Cooley Alert, EU Adopts Mandatory Rules on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence That Will Apply to Many US Companies, from Cooley’s International ESG and Sustainability Advisory team, the CSDDD could turn out to be a “heavy lift” for many in-scope companies: the new law will mandate, for the first time, comprehensive “human rights and environmental due diligence obligations, with significant financial penalties and civil liability for companies that do not fully comply,” as well as new requirements for companies “to adopt and put into effect a climate transition plan” and “to report on their due diligence processes.” As the Alert observes, these requirements “reframe existing international soft laws”—UN Guiding Principles and OECD guidelines—as “mandatory obligations.”
Is ESG a “must have” only in boom-times?
Not so long ago, zeal for corporate action on ESG was skyrocketing. Now? Not so much. What happened? Many have attributed the decline in appetite for ESG to the politicization of ESG and particularly to ESG backlash. This paper from the Rock Center for Corporate governance at Stanford has another idea. Has “ESG enthusiasm” reached its expiration date or, as the paper posits, is it like an alligator Birkin bag, just a luxury—something to pursue only when you’re “feeling flush”? In economics, the authors explain, demand for most items declines as prices increase. Not so with luxury goods, where “a high price tag stimulates demand in part because of the social benefits the purchaser receives by signaling to others their ability to afford it.” Demand for luxury goods often rises and falls with the economy; when times are prosperous, demand for luxury goods increases and when money is tight, demand falls. In that light, a “case can be made,” the authors contend, “that ESG is a luxury good.”
Is the proxy advisory industry a net benefit or cost to shareholders?
In Seven Questions About Proxy Advisors, from the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford, the authors, David Larcker and Brian Tayan, examine the proxy advisory firm industry—all two of them. Well, actually, as the paper observes, there are a large number of small players, but Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis “control[] almost the entire market.” It’s well-known that recommendations from ISS and GL are considered important—sometimes even a major aspect of the battle—especially in contests for corporate control and director elections. But, the authors point out, the extent of their influence on “voting outcomes and corporate choices is not established, nor is the role they play in the market. Are proxy advisory firms information intermediaries (that digest and distill proxy data), issue spotters (that highlight matters deserving closer scrutiny), or standard setters (that influence corporate choices through their guidelines and models)? Because of the uncertainty around these questions, disagreement exists whether their influence is beneficial, benign, or harmful. Defenders of proxy advisors tout them as advocates for shareholder democracy, while detractors fashion them as unaccountable standard setters.” The paper examines “seven important questions about the role, influence and effectiveness of proxy advisory firms.” The authors explore why there is so much controversy about the purpose, role and contribution of proxy advisory firms, asking whether “the proxy advisory industry—as currently structured—[is] a net benefit or cost to shareholders?”
SEC and NAM appeal decision holding 2020 proxy advisor rule amendments unlawful
You probably remember the saga about the SEC’s rules regarding proxy advisory firms? Back in 2019, the SEC issued interpretive guidance that proxy advisory firms’ vote recommendations were, in the view of the SEC, “solicitations” under the proxy rules and subject to the anti-fraud provisions of Rule 14a-9. (See this PubCo post.) That guidance led ISS to sue the SEC and then-SEC Chair Jay Clayton. SEC rules codifying that interpretation were adopted in 2020. ISS amended its complaint, contending that the interpretation in the release and the subsequent rules were unlawful for a number of reasons, including that the SEC’s determination that providing proxy advice is a “solicitation” was contrary to law, that the SEC failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that the views expressed in the release were arbitrary and capricious. The National Association of Manufacturers, which favored the 2020 amendments, intervened on the side of the SEC (and also became a defendant). Over four years later, in February 2024, the DC District Court held that the SEC’s rules regarding proxy advisory firms were invalid, stating that the “SEC acted contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority when it amended the proxy rules’ definition of ‘solicit’ and ‘solicitation’ to include proxy voting advice for a fee.” (See this PubCo post.) Now, both NAM and the SEC have filed notices of appeal with the DC Circuit.
Chamber seeks to intervene in environmental group challenges to SEC climate disclosure rules
As you probably remember, the SEC’s climate disclosure rules were challenged not only by those contending that the rules went too far and that the SEC had no authority—think, for example, Liberty Energy, the State of Iowa and the Chamber of Commerce—but also by the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which claimed that the SEC did have the legal authority to adopt the rules but did not go far enough and left out some important information. All those cases have recently been consolidated in the Eighth Circuit. Now, the Chamber of Commerce has moved for leave to intervene in the cases brought by the Sierra Club and the NRDC “to defend those portions of the final rule that refrained from imposing the additional disclosure requirements the environmental groups would have this Court require the SEC to impose.” The Sierra Club, the motion contends, “intends to argue that the SEC should have required public companies to disclose not only their own greenhouse-gas emissions, but also the emissions from the ‘use of [their] products’ and across their ‘supply chains’”; that is, that the SEC failed to impose a requirement to disclose Scope 3 GHG emissions.
Another House hearing on climate disclosure rules?
Yesterday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “Beyond Scope: How the SEC’s Climate Rule Threatens American Markets.” Since, as one of the committee members observed, this is their sixth hearing on the SEC and twelfth on climate change, there was a lot of the same old, same old—just from different witnesses. (One Committee member called this topic a “manufactured culture war” that the Committee is relitigating; why was the Committee wasting time on this topic when they should be dealing with the problems in housing?) At the hearing, we heard familiar statements to the effect of: the SEC is just pandering to political interest groups; the rules require “extensive and granular” disclosure of information that many do not view to be material; the rules are outside the SEC’s authority and an instance of “mission creep”; this is an attempt by the Biden administration to use regulation to force on the public the climate agenda that it was unable to get through Congress; the costs will be burdensome especially for smaller companies and will result in higher costs and fewer public companies. Or: investors have been demanding this information; voluntary disclosure is inconsistent, unreliable and not comparable; and many companies will already need to comply with the more rigorous rules of the EU and California anyway, so the cost will not be as great as some fear; the SEC acted completely within its wheelhouse. Sound familiar? But there were some highlights, so let’s hit those.
In its discretion, SEC issues stay of final climate disclosure rules
The SEC has determined, in this Order posted today, to exercise its discretion to stay the final climate disclosure rules “pending the completion of judicial review of the consolidated Eighth Circuit petitions.” If you have been following the SEC travails regarding the climate disclosure rules, you know that there were ten different petitions—the tenth petition having been filed by the National Legal and Policy Center and the Oil and Gas Workers Association—consolidated in the Eighth Circuit, challenging the rules and several asking the court for a stay. The SEC had opposed the stay. (See, e.g., this PubCo post, this PubCo post and this PubCo post.) (One of the petitioners, Liberty Energy, even filed a precautionary complaint challenging the final rules in a Texas District Court, just in case jurisdiction was ultimately not accepted in the Court of Appeals.) At the end of March, the SEC had filed a motion to establish a consolidated briefing schedule relating to all of the motions seeking a stay; 31 petitioners opposed the SEC’s motion, instead asking the court to expedite briefing on the existing and expected emergency stay motions. Under the Exchange Act and the APA, the SEC “has discretion to stay its rules pending judicial review if it finds that ‘justice so requires.’” According to the Order, the SEC has determined that justice requires that the SEC stay the final rules.
Commissioner Uyeda warns: the SEC “has gone astray”
In remarks at PLI’s SEC Speaks, SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda expressed his concern that the SEC “has gone astray”: instead of focusing on “its narrow mission,” Uyeda fears, the SEC is acceding to the pressure of political activists who “seek to transform the agency’s authority to achieve policy objectives that are outside of its statutory mandate.” To illustrate, Uyeda highlights two examples: the climate disclosure rules, just adopted by the SEC, and the conflict minerals rules, which were adopted by the SEC over a decade ago and are here presented as a cautionary tale. While the conflict minerals rules were actually mandated by Congress, the climate disclosure rules are something different: the SEC has “acted on its own volition,” Uyeda contends, in adopting “a climate disclosure rule that seeks to exert societal pressure on companies to change their behavior. It is the Commission that determined to delve into matters beyond its jurisdiction and expertise.” To Uyeda, “this action deviates from the Commission’s mission and contravenes established law.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.