Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Big Three asset managers seek coal lawsuit dismissal (2025)
| Environmental, social, and corporate governance |
|---|
|
| • What is ESG? • Enacted ESG legislation • Arguments for and against ESG • Opposition to ESG • Federal ESG rules • ESG legislation tracker • Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's weekly ESG newsletter |
The Big Three passive asset management firms—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—filed a joint motion last week requesting the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by several Republican states alleging the firms’ ESG activities suppressed coal production.
The states’ lawsuit alleges that the asset managers used their stakes in coal companies and coordinated illegally through climate-focused investor groups to pressure those companies to reduce production. The asset managers have argued the claim is unfounded.
According to ESG Dive:
| “ |
The asset managers’ lawyers said that for the court to find that the states had presented viable antitrust claims would require “contorting the law in a way that would hurt both coal companies and individual investors.” The allegation that they sought to influence the market through their ownership of coal company shares is in violation of a section of the Clayton Antitrust Act, the firms added. The defendants argued that this particular claim “is a nonstarter,” as that section of the act contains an explicit carve-out for acquisitions “solely for investment,” the joint motion said. The asset managers argued in their response filing that the states not only fail to directly allege that there was an agreement in place between the firms — instead pointing to various current and former climate memberships and disclosures, in the case of BlackRock’s deceptive marketing claims — but that circumstantial evidence would refute that claim. The investment firms pointed to the growth of coal output between 2021-22, included in a table in the complaint, as well as BlackRock and State Street’s voting histories when they voted against several company directors who cut production and “often did not vote against directors whose companies produced more coal.” Additionally, the filing said there were several instances when Vanguard engaged with a coal company that then increased its coal production that year.[1] |
” |
See also
- Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG)
- Economy and Society: Ballotpedia's ESG newsletter
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
