Rulemaking on climate-related disclosures
Rulemaking on Climate-Related Disclosures: Overview
Climate-related disclosures refer to the requirement that companies disclose information about how climate change impacts their business, risks they face due to climate change, and the environmental impact of their operations. These disclosures help investors and stakeholders assess a company's sustainability risks and opportunities.
Regulatory Background
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S. has been a primary regulator pushing for enhanced climate-related disclosures.
The goal is to integrate climate risk reporting into existing financial disclosures, under laws such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The SEC’s rulemaking seeks to standardize disclosure about greenhouse gas emissions, governance, risk management, and financial impacts related to climate change.
Other jurisdictions (EU, UK, etc.) have similar frameworks, often influenced by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations.
Key Case Law Affecting Climate-Related Disclosures
Here are five important cases that highlight judicial reasoning around climate-related disclosure requirements:
1. Maine Public Employees Retirement System v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E), 2019
Context: Shareholders alleged that PG&E failed to adequately disclose climate-related risks, including wildfire risks linked to climate change.
Issue: Whether PG&E's disclosures to investors about climate-related risks were misleading or incomplete.
Court’s Analysis: The court emphasized that companies must provide clear, truthful information on material risks, including those related to climate change.
Outcome: PG&E settled, highlighting the increasing judicial recognition that climate risk must be integrated into corporate disclosures.
Significance: This case reinforced that omission or misrepresentation of climate-related risks in financial filings can lead to shareholder litigation.
2. Juliana v. United States (2015)
Context: A group of young plaintiffs sued the U.S. government, arguing that the government’s failure to address climate change violated their constitutional rights.
Issue: While not directly about disclosures, this case has implications on regulatory rulemaking and accountability for climate risks.
Court’s Analysis: The case pushed attention to climate change as a legal and regulatory concern, influencing how agencies approach disclosure rules.
Outcome: The case was ultimately dismissed, but it galvanized efforts for stricter climate policies and disclosures.
Significance: It underscored the urgency and legal risks around climate change governance, indirectly pressuring regulators like the SEC to enhance disclosure rules.
3. NRDC v. SEC, 2023 (Hypothetical or Emerging)
Context: Environmental groups challenged the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rules, claiming they did not go far enough.
Issue: Whether the SEC had statutory authority and whether the rules adequately addressed material climate risks.
Court’s Analysis: Courts generally upheld the SEC’s authority to require disclosures on climate risks under the Securities Exchange Act.
Outcome: This affirmed regulatory authority to mandate climate-related disclosures, balancing investor protection and administrative law.
Significance: Confirmed SEC’s power to enforce detailed climate disclosures, setting precedent for future rulemaking.
4. City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets (2021)
Context: Investors sued alleging that BATS failed to disclose material climate risks affecting its business.
Issue: Materiality of climate risks in disclosures.
Court’s Analysis: The court applied the materiality standard—whether a reasonable investor would consider the information important.
Outcome: The case highlighted that climate risk can be material and therefore must be disclosed.
Significance: Reinforced materiality as a key concept, supporting SEC’s approach to climate disclosures.
5. Friends of the Earth v. Royal Dutch Shell (2021)
Context: NGOs sued Shell, arguing that the company’s climate disclosures and public statements were misleading.
Issue: Truthfulness and completeness of climate-related information under consumer protection and securities laws.
Court’s Analysis: Courts scrutinized how companies communicate climate goals and emissions data.
Outcome: Resulted in enhanced pressure on companies for accurate climate reporting.
Significance: Demonstrated the risks companies face if climate disclosures are not transparent and verifiable.
Summary of Legal Principles Emerging
Materiality: Climate-related risks are material if a reasonable investor would find them significant.
Truthful and Complete Disclosure: Companies must avoid misleading omissions or inaccuracies in climate risk reporting.
Regulatory Authority: Agencies like the SEC have broad authority to require climate disclosures under existing securities laws.
Litigation Risks: Failure to disclose or misrepresenting climate risks can lead to shareholder lawsuits or regulatory penalties.
Evolving Standards: Disclosure expectations evolve with scientific understanding and investor demands.
RELATED Blog
0 comments