Washington, D.C.

Eleven attorneys general sue asset managers, alleging ESG investment standards raise coal prices and violate antitrust laws

The ideological battle over the role of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment standards intensified last week, as the Texas Attorney General and 10 other Attorneys General sued three asset management companies, alleging that ESG strategies pursued by these companies in relation to coal production violated federal and state antitrust laws.

ESG is a set of standards or ideals that socially conscious investors seek out when choosing where to place their money. Over the past four years, ESG investment standards have become increasingly controversial. Some liberal and progressive advocates have sought to pressure large investors to consider issues such as racial justice, labor policies, and environmental stewardship when making investments in companies. At the same time, some conservative critics have opposed ESG as an attempt to inject ideology into investment decisions at the expense of shareholder value.

Allegations and Defenses

The tension is on full display in the Texas complaint. The complaint alleges that the three asset management companies—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act by acquiring minority interests in multiple competing coal-producing companies and then using governance rights (such as proxy votes) to influence the coal companies to reduce output in the name of environmental stewardship. The complaint alleges that this output reduction, in turn, raised the price of coal directly and consumer electric bills indirectly. The states claim that the agreement was reached through organizations committed to reducing carbon output, such as Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.

The investment firms likely will raise several defenses. Among other things, they likely will argue that the states have not plausibly alleged an agreement among the investment companies. The complaint relies heavily on public statements and on the involvement of the investment companies in industry organizations, but the law imposes a high pleading burden on Section 1 plaintiffs, and the absence of a plausible economic motive may prove problematic for the plaintiffs. The companies will likely also challenge the plaintiffs’ allegations of anticompetitive effect. The plaintiffs appear to allege that the agreement had the effect of increasing the price of coal, but given the nature of the alleged agreement, if proven, it likely would be assessed under the Rule of Reason. This means the alleged agreement’s pro-competitive justifications (disregarding any potential environmental benefits) would be weighed against the anti-competitive effects, and these types of cases are often difficult for plaintiffs to prove.

Similarly, the complaint’s Section 7 challenge to the acquisition of a minority interest by different investors in different coal companies may be difficult to prove. The companies will likely point out that the investors are not alleged to have controlled any of the acquired companies, either individually or collectively, and if accepted, the claims would represent an expansion of the antitrust laws. Under either claim, any economic analysis of a but-for world would be complicated by competing industry trends and regulations.

Broader Implications for ESG and Antitrust

Certainly, it is possible to imagine ESG efforts that would raise significant antitrust concerns, given that ESG goals often require industry collaboration. Notwithstanding the best intentions, case law has held that an effort to achieve social good through collusion or unlawful agreements does not provide a defense, let alone immunity, to an antitrust challenge. Nat’l Soc’y of Pro. Eng’rs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978) (rejecting the argument that safety concerns justified an agreement among engineers not to quote prices before being hired); In Re Processed Egg Prod. Antitrust Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 867, 877 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (industry agreement to improve the quality of life for animals may be alleged to increase prices or reduce output).

Government regulation may be an answer when an industry-wide agreement is needed to achieve a societal goal, but it is an imperfect one. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine holds that anticompetitive effects caused by petitioning the government are immune from antitrust liability. The state action doctrine holds that state actors, including state regulatory boards dominated by industry participants, are generally not subject to antitrust scrutiny. A regulator may choose standards that are not ideal for the industry, and unlike voluntary standards, companies cannot opt out of government-enforced regulations.

The heightened scrutiny of ESG means that any ESG effort must be approached with great care and sensitivity toward antitrust. Trade organizations can be alleged to be conduits for sharing sensitive information, and statements about intentions to adhere to policies or standards can be interpreted as signals or invitations to collude, even when made publicly. Accordingly, the compliance rules applicable to trade associations and public announcements of intentions should be observed diligently when the topic is ESG.

Conclusion: A Case to Watch

Finally, while ESG aspirations have not yet been tested as a defense to antitrust claims, there is no basis in antitrust law for targeting ESG goals as inherently suspect or deserving of greater antitrust scrutiny than other industry self-regulatory efforts. Given the controversial nature of ESG, this case will certainly be followed closely.

Cohen & Gresser is honored to be named to Global Investigations Review’s GIR 100 for the sixth year in a row, reaffirming its position as a leading international law firm for cross-border investigations.

The GIR 100, a definitive guide to the world’s top firms for investigations, recognized Cohen & Gresser for its exceptional representation of high-profile individuals and companies. The firm was highlighted for its strong team of renowned lawyers operating in key jurisdictions worldwide. The GIR 100 is based on comprehensive submissions and rigorous independent research, identifying the top 100 firms globally that excel in government-led, internal, and cross-border investigations.

Cohen & Gresser’s White Collar Defense and Regulation practice, which spans its offices in New York, Washington, D.C., Paris, and London, is central to its continued success. The practice boasts a highly experienced Internal Investigations team that advises global clients, including corporations, boards of directors, special committees, and audit committees.

The team’s work encompasses the full spectrum of investigations, from responding to discrete, anonymous employee complaints to managing complex, wide-ranging investigations tied to ongoing litigation or regulatory and criminal scrutiny.

This recognition underscores Cohen & Gresser’s dedication to providing clients with sophisticated, strategic counsel in even the most challenging investigative matters.

Vault has named Cohen & Gresser to its 2025 Top 150 Under 150 list, which recognizes the nation’s best law firms with 150 or fewer lawyers.

Vault praises C&G for its “White Collar Whizzes,” emphasizing the firm’s “strong reputation in this area.” The publication also recognizes the firm’s “bustling litigation practice,” noting its expertise in handling a broad range of matters, including “antitrust and bankruptcy, class actions and commercial litigation, directors and officers liability, products liability—and more.”

In addition to this recognition, Vault also named C&G on numerous quality-of-life lists, including Best Midsize Law Firms for Pro Bono, Best Midsize Law Firms for Firm Culture, Most Selective Midsize Law Firms, and Best Midsize Law Firms for Wellness.

Vault created the Top 150 Under 150 list to recognize outstanding small and midsize law firms that deliver big results. Vault editorial and research teams evaluated survey data, news stories, trade journals, and other legal publications; spoke with lawyers in the field; and reviewed other published rankings. Editors also assessed each firm for prestige, quality of life, and professional growth opportunities and then narrowed down the results to come up with the final list of recognized law firms.

 

Cohen & Gresser partner John Roberti has been recognized in the 2024 edition of Who's Who Legal: Competition.

John has over 25 years of experience advising clients on a variety of complex antitrust issues, including high-profile litigation and investigations, and is an alumnus of the Federal Trade Commission. He is a leading cartel class action lawyer and represents both plaintiffs and defendants in all manners of antitrust claims.

Co-published with Global Competition Review, Who's Who Legal: Competition is a comprehensive guide to the leading competition lawyers around the world.

Who’s Who Legal is an organization that identifies the leading legal practitioners and consulting experts in business law based on comprehensive, independent research. The individuals featured in the guide obtained the largest number of nominations from peers, corporate counsel, and other market sources.

The rumors of the death of price discrimination enforcement may have been greatly exaggerated. The Robinson-Patman Act (“RPA”) (15 U.S.C. §13), enacted in 1936, prohibits price discrimination by producers and resellers of goods between similarly situated purchasers. Government enforcement of the RPA has been infrequent during the last half-century, and non-existent since 2000. In 2007, the Antitrust Modernization Commission, a bipartisan group established by Congress to review federal antitrust laws, recommended repeal of the RPA, concluding that it disincentivized discounting and thereby harmed consumer welfare.

RPA enforcement, however, seems to be making a comeback. Antitrust enforcement under the Biden Administration has largely rejected the “consumer welfare standard”—which equates competition with harm to consumers, typically in the form of increased prices—in favor of a broader focus on excessive consolidation of private power and its longer-term economic implications. The RPA, enacted to protect smaller retailers from a competitive advantage that benefited chain stores and other larger competitors able to obtain lower wholesale prices, is consistent with this approach.

Recent press reports suggest the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may be on the verge of an RPA enforcement action. These reports follow public statements by both FTC Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya emphasizing the RPA and indications that the FTC has opened at least two RPA investigations under Khan’s leadership. In March 2024, a group of 16 lawmakers, including some of the most prominent supporters of the Biden Administration’s enforcement agenda, urged the FTC to “revive enforcement” of the RPA in connection with consolidation and high prices in the food industry.

Moreover, the RPA remains enforceable through private actions. While such actions have been rare, and successful actions even more so, a federal court in California last month affirmed a jury verdict in favor of wholesalers of eye drops against distributors who were found to have sold the drops to Costco and Sam’s Club at a lower price than the plaintiffs received. In addition to the jury’s damages award, the court granted injunctive relief. L.A. Int’l Corp. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., 2024 WL 2272384 (C.D. Cal. May 20, 2024). Revived agency enforcement would likely lead to an increase in private actions as well.

Accordingly, businesses that sell and purchase goods should be familiar with the key provisions of the RPA:

• The RPA prohibits discrimination in price between at least two consummated sales to different purchasers. Mere offers to sell at a particular price or refusals to sell at all to a particular purchaser do not trigger RPA liability. Moreover, the RPA is limited to “commodities,” i.e., tangible goods sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States. Services are excluded from the RPA’s ambit.
• The two sales must be reasonably contemporaneous, and the goods involved must be of “like grade and quality.”
• At least one of the sales must be in interstate commerce, i.e., across state lines.
• Prohibited discrimination includes the furnishing of services or facilities in connection with the sale of the commodity; any such services or facilities must be made available to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms. If a seller compensates its customer for services or facilities furnished in connection with the sale, such as marketing or promotion, it must make those payments available on proportionally equal terms to other purchasers that compete to distribute the same product.
• However, the RPA does not prohibit price differentials that merely allow for the differing methods or quantities in which the goods are sold or delivered to the respective purchasers or that result from a response to changing conditions affecting the saleability of goods (such as deterioration of perishable goods or obsolescence of seasonal goods).
• And there is no actionable price discrimination if the lower price was functionally available to the disfavored purchaser, provided that the disfavored purchaser was aware of the availability of the lower price and that such availability was not merely theoretical. For example, a volume-based discount might be facially available to all customers, but if the requisite volume threshold is higher than certain purchasers can realistically meet, it may not be considered functionally available to all purchasers.
• Unlike other antitrust statutes, the RPA does not require a showing of marketwide injury to competition. Rather, it is sufficient to show that the discrimination harmed a company’s ability to compete with the grantor of the discriminatory price, any person who knowingly received the benefit of the discriminatory price, or with customers of either. While the competitive injury ordinarily will occur at the buyer’s level, the RPA also permits claims for harm to competition between sellers, between customers of the favored and disfavored purchasers, or between customers even further downstream.
• A seller who is alleged to have discriminated in violation of the RPA may establish, as an affirmative defense, that it granted a lower price to the favored purchaser in order to meet (but not beat) the price of a competitor.
• Liability is not limited to sellers; the RPA also imposes liability on purchasers who knowingly induce or receive a favorably discriminatory price.
• A standalone provision of the RPA prohibits parties to a sale from granting or receiving any compensation, or any allowance or discount in lieu of compensation, except for services rendered.

The RPA is an oft-overlooked component of antitrust compliance, largely due to its infrequent enforcement. However, every company’s antitrust compliance program should include a review of its relationships with customers and suppliers to ensure that its pricing plans and pricing decisions comply with the RPA and that the reasons for any deviations from price, such as meeting competition, are well documented.

The Legal 500 United States 2024 edition has recognized Cohen & Gresser’s New York and Washington, D.C. offices for excellence across multiple categories, including Antitrust Litigation, Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Crime, Commercial Litigation, and Securities Litigation. Testimonials included in the guide praise the firm for being a “litigation powerhouse” and for its “devotion to the needs of the clients, its creativity, and its perseverance.”

Mark Cohen is once again recognized as a Leading Partner in both Securities Litigation and Corporate Investigations & White-Collar Crime: Advice to Individuals.

The 2024 guide also recognizes Lawrence T. Gresser, Jonathan Abernethy, Jason Brown, S. Gale Dick, Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Lang, Alisa Lu, Melissa Maxman, Douglas Pepe, John Roberti, Daniel Tabak, and Ronald Wick as recommended lawyers.

This 17th edition of The Legal 500 United States guide, which identifies the “true superstars of the profession,” involved a detailed assessment of various factors, including work conducted by law firms over the past 12 months and historically; experience and depth of teams; and client feedback.

Founded in 2002, Cohen & Gresser’s New York office serves as the firm’s headquarters. Our New York attorneys are particularly strong in complex litigation, investigations, and transactions. The firm’s Washington, D.C. office handles a range of commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement actions, with a focus on domestic and foreign antitrust issues.

Cohen & Gresser earned multiple practice area and individual lawyer rankings in the 2024 edition of Chambers USA, receiving high praise for having an “incredible collection of brilliant, hard-working lawyers” who are “focused on providing clear and easy to understand guidance and advice."

The firm’s White Collar Defense & Regulation practice is once again ranked in the guide, maintaining its position as one of the “Elite” firms in the Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations category. Chambers recognized the firm’s “strong regulatory investigations and enforcement practice,” specifically highlighting its “expert financial services practice which offers particular strengths in FINRA and SEC proceedings.” Client feedback praises the team for its “strong expertise with the DOJ and with prosecutors.”

The Commercial Litigation practice is also ranked in the Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded category, receiving high praise from clients for having a “strong understanding of the client’s needs” and for being “smart, creative and willing to try difficult strategies and aggressive approaches.”

The firm’s Antitrust & Competition practice is ranked in the Antitrust category, with Chambers noting that “Cohen & Gresser houses a strong practice across a range of antitrust disputes [including] sophisticated litigation.” Client feedback praises the team for being “creative and responsive” and having “strong knowledge of antitrust class actions.”

Partners throughout Cohen & Gresser’s US practices also earned individual rankings in the following categories:

Antitrust: Litigation Specialists (DC)                                  

Melissa H Maxman

John Roberti

Litigation: General Commercial (NY)

Lawrence T Gresser

Litigation: Securities (NY)

Mark S Cohen

Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (NY)

Jonathan S Abernethy

Jason Brown

Mark S Cohen

Christian R Everdell

Chambers is the world’s leading legal data and analytics provider, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA based on in-depth research that includes reference feedback, client satisfaction, reputation in the market, peer knowledge, and other discreet independent market sources.

Best Lawyers in America recognized 14 Cohen & Gresser lawyers in its newly-published 2024 guide. The publication—now in its 30^th edition—evaluates and selects lawyers based entirely on peer review. The survey process is “designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area.”

Six C&G attorneys are recognized by their peers as “Best Lawyers” in their practice areas:

• Mark S. Cohen – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Lawrence T. Gresser – Commercial Litigation
• Jonathan S. Abernethy – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Colin Bridge – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Jason A. Brown – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Mark Spatz – Product Liability Litigation - Defendants

Eight attorneys are recognized as “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” in their practice areas:

• Luke Appling – Commercial Litigation and Litigation - Securities
• Sharon L. Barbour – Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• William E. Kalema – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Phoebe King – Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Barbara K. Luse – Commercial Litigation and Corporate Law
• Alexandra K. Theobald – Commercial Litigation and Corporate Law
• Eszter Vincze – Commercial Litigation and Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Benjamin Zhu – Criminal Defense: White-Collar

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) last week announced the formation of a new task force to guide its enforcement strategy and policy approach to health care, with an apparent focus on industry consolidation and collusive behavior.

According to the DOJ announcement released on May 9, 2024, the Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion (“HCMC”) will consider “widespread competition concerns shared by patients, health care professionals, businesses and entrepreneurs.” Issues to be addressed include payer-provider consolidation, serial acquisitions, labor and quality of care, medical billing, health care information technology services, and access to and use of health care data. The task force will include both civil and criminal enforcement attorneys, as well as economists, industry experts, technologists, data scientists, investigators, and policy advisors from across the Antitrust Division’s sections and offices.

The announcement of the HCMC is unsurprising in many respects. The health care industry has long been a major target of antitrust enforcement, and the Biden DOJ has previously signaled its continued focus on health care competition. In December 2022, the Antitrust Division entered into a formal collaboration with the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services aimed at preventing collusion and promoting competition in health care markets. And just last month, the Antitrust Division launched an online portal for the public to report potentially anticompetitive health care practices.

Moreover, there is precedent for efforts to consolidate antitrust enforcement expertise in complex industries. Last week’s announcement is reminiscent of the Federal Trade Commission’s 2019 formation of a task force focused on competition in technology markets. Notably, like that task force, the HCMC appears to be drawing on the agency’s current resources rather than hiring additional staff, suggesting that the Antitrust Division’s focus is on more efficient, and not necessarily broader, enforcement.

In a National Law Journal article about the HCMC, Melissa H. Maxman, Washington DC Office Managing Partner, was quoted as noting that there are smaller health care companies that will be relieved to be examined under an enforcement approach that is targeted at their specific factual situations. “Task forces sometimes can be inefficient,” she added, “[b]ut if ever there were a need for one, it would be in health care competition.” While the impact of the HCMC remains to be seen, the Antitrust Division’s approach has the potential to facilitate a better informed and more comprehensive analysis of a market that poses unique regulatory and enforcement challenges.

The Cohen & Gresser antitrust team has extensive experience representing businesses in the health care industry, including physicians, pharmacies, and manufacturers. If you have any questions about potential areas of focus for the HCMC, please contact either of the authors of this article.

Cohen & Gresser's Washington, D.C. lawyers have been recognized in the 2024 Super Lawyers guide.

Each year, Super Lawyers identifies outstanding lawyers nationwide and regionally who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 5 percent of lawyers are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars. This latest guide recognizes 100 percent of our D.C. partners and associates.

The C&G lawyers recognized as Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers are:

• Melissa H. Maxman – Antitrust Litigation
• John Roberti – Antitrust Litigation
• Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust Litigation

The C&G lawyers recognized as Washington, D.C. Rising Stars are:

• Derek Jackson – Business Litigation
• Alisa Lu – Business Litigation