Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) continues to dominate headlines, and we’re seeing increased investor interest in its application to the shareholder litigation space.

Over the next two months, six non-US recovery efforts have registration deadlines where investors can apply environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors to prioritize the opportunities.

Like investment ESG, litigation ESG enhances decision-making at the margin.  For investments, the primary concern is a return for risk.  For litigation, it’s potential recovery for risk.  When choosing among litigation matters competing for limited internal resources, or if fund losses are ‘close’ to pre-set threshold amounts in securities litigation policies, the potential ESG benefits of suit can inform participation activity.

This article considers the upcoming matters from an ESG perspective, providing a good starting point for thinking about the inclusion of ESG factors in governance policies and procedures.

The Six Matters with Upcoming Deadlines

Organizers are pursuing recovery efforts involving companies in several countries. Core claims in all six matters can be tied to Governance (G), Environmental (E) and Social (S) factors.

Considering ESG

Investment ESG tries to encourage or discourage corporate behavior through investment.  Litigation ESG does the same with lawsuits.

Of the three factors, Governance (G) seems straightforward.  All six matters involve false financials and suits attempting to hold the companies and others involved accountable for resulting harm to investors encourages the companies and others to report more timely and accurate results in the future.  Wirecard is pure “G”.  There don’t appear to be any environmental or social aspects to the matter.  Investors just lost their shirts.

The other five have varying degrees of Environmental (E) and Social (S) factors.  Daimler and VW Bonds are on the low end.  While cars with defeat devices pollute the environment more than represented, which may be bad long term, the immediate harms are financial.  Investors overpaid for their shares and consumers overpaid for their cars.

While Bayer seems to have “E” and “S” aspects – personal injury from exposure to unfriendly pesticides – the crux of the matters has to do with the company’s allegedly misleading statements about the risks from previously filed litigation against the entity it acquired.  In other words, Bayer did not cause the underlying environmental and social harm.  It bought the consequences.  While suits against it may encourage better financial disclosures, it likely won’t do much to deter environmental or social harm from pesticides.

Glencore highlights the social ill of public corruption, but it’s not likely people died or the environment was further harmed. By contrast, the human and environmental toll from the Vale damn failure was immediate and enormous.  Hopefully, suits holding the company accountable for these consequences will deter future bad mining techniques and somewhat offset the contrary influence of the capital markets, which have rewarded the company with rising share prices.

So, on an ESG scale, the six matters rank as follows, from low to high: Wirecard, Bayer, Glencore, Daimler, VW, and Vale.

Conclusion

When using ESG in litigation decisions, investors should consider whether joining could change behavior for the better at the company involved or the markets generally. Besides improving financial reporting and promoting good governance – something common to all securities fraud cases – investors should think about whether their litigation efforts may deter misconduct underlying the core claims that have negative environmental or social implications. Concrete, immediate harm should always receive more weight than distant, speculative harms.

While not the main reason for joining litigation, at the margin, ESG goals offer worthy reasons to proceed in close calls or to prioritize certain matters over others when faced with multiple options and limited internal resources. With experience, ESG factors can be refined and expressed in governance policies and practices, with success.

Subscribe to FRT’s Monthly Newsletter

Financial Recovery Technologies’ Shareholder Litigation Fast Five provides you with the top news in shareholder class actions. This is your exclusive summary of the latest industry developments related to settled, group and antitrust actions and recovery opportunities. Click here to subscribe.

Learn More

To learn more about how FRT can help your firm incorporate Shareholder Litigation Recovery into your ESG policy, contact us at learnmore@frtservices.com.

This communication and the content found by following any link herein are being provided to you by Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) for informational purposes only and does not constitute advice. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but FRT makes no representation or warranty with respect to this communication or such content and expressly disclaims any implied warranty under law. Opinions expressed in this communication may change without prior notice. Firms should always seek legal and financial advice specific to their unique situation and objectives.