May 2021 Archives

Oil Giants Pressed for Changes Instead of Promises

A substantial number of large corporations would have us believe they are in the forefront of the efforts to address issues such as climate change, inequality and racial injustice. They brag about their commitment to corporate social responsibility and claim to be devoted to high-minded ESG (environmental, social and governance) principles in their operations.

There are two big reasons to be skeptical about this self-congratulatory stance. The first is that Big Business is often the cause of those problems, not the solution. The second is that the remedial measures companies claim to be taking often turn out to be illusory.

Two recent developments suggest that that corporations may be unable to go on running these cons. In an unprecedented ruling, a court in the Netherlands ordered petroleum giant Royal Dutch Shell to cut its carbon dioxide emissions sharply to align with the Paris agreement on climate change. This was said to be the first time a company faced a legal mandate of this kind. What made the decision even more significant is that Shell was held responsible not only for its own emissions but also those of its supply chain. This suit, brought by environmental groups, was a legal breakthrough for the climate movement.

Yet, the ruling was also consequential in that it challenges the notion that corporations should be allowed to make their own decisions on how to address environmental and social goals. And in that sense it rocks the foundations of ESG, which is built on the idea of voluntary measures. Companies have gotten a great deal of mileage out of making claims about what they have done or plan to do. Many of these statements cannot be verified, and there is no enforcement mechanism for holding corporations to their promises.

Much of what goes by the name of corporate social responsibility is a method of warding off more stringent government regulation by claiming that the private sector can address the issues on its own.

Shell is a prime example of a company that says one thing and does another. On its website, the company claims that its commitment to sustainability dates back to 1997 and that it works “to embed this sustainability commitment into our strategy, our business processes and decision-making.”

Yet during this same quarter-century, Shell has been embroiled in an ongoing controversy over its practices in Nigeria. Environmental groups alleged that the company’s operations were responsible for a large number of pipeline ruptures, gas flaring and other forms of contamination that also contributed to greenhouse gas emissions. The Nigerian government responded to protests with a wave of repression, including the arrest and killing of prominent activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Shell denied it was involved, but critics pointed to the role played by the company in supporting the military dictatorship.

A lawsuit brought by Friends of the Earth Netherlands and four Nigerian farmers was filed in a Dutch court, alleging that spills from Shell pipelines damaged the livelihood of the farmers. The case dragged on for years, but in early 2021 the Hague Court of Appeal finally issued a decision on the case, ruling that Shell had to pay compensation to the farmers and install equipment to prevent future pipeline leaks.

Shell is not the only oil major on the hot seat. After years of leading the corporate climate denial effort, Exxon Mobil claimed to be changing its stance. It may have abandoned the overt denialism, but it resisted taking significant steps to reduce its carbon footprint. Now, institutional investors have run out of patience.

Led by an upstart hedge fund called Engine No.1, investors succeeded in electing two members to the Exxon board against the wishes of CEO Darren Woods. Those directors vowed to use their position to press the company to move toward carbon neutrality.

The two will be a minority on the board, but their election will make it harder for Woods to ignore the calls for Exxon to do more to address the climate crisis.

The revolt within Exxon and Shell’s legal setbacks will not by themselves transform business, but they are indications that large corporations may find it increasingly difficult to rely on vague commitments and instead may have to take concrete, enforceable measures to address climate change and other urgent issues.

The 200-Year-Old Corporate Criminal

Boston-based State Street Corporation traces its history back to 1792 and now manages more than $3 trillion in assets, yet it has always maintained a lower profile than the goliaths of Wall Street. Recently, the company was in the spotlight, though not in a good way.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Massachusetts announced that State Street would pay a $115 million criminal penalty to resolve charges that it engaged in a scheme to defraud a number of its clients by secretly overcharging for expenses related to the bank’s custody of client assets.

“State Street defrauded its own clients of hundreds of millions of dollars over decades in a most pedestrian way,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Mendell. “They tacked on hidden markups to routine charges for out-of-pocket expenses.”

What’s remarkable is this simple fraud went on, according to prosecutors, for 17 years. This suggests that a large number of company executives were in on the scheme. In effect, it became part of State Street’s standard operating procedure.

It is disappointing that, aside from the monetary penalty—which can be easily absorbed by a company of its size–State Street was let off with what amounted to a slap on the wrist. Like numerous large corporate violators before it, State Street was allowed to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement rather than being compelled to enter a guilty plea.

The DPA is all the more controversial because State Street did not have a pristine record prior to this case. As shown in Violation Tracker, it has paid more than $1 billion in penalties in previous cases dating over a decade. These included a 2010 case in which it had to pay $313 million to resolve allegations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Massachusetts Attorney General that it misled investors about their exposure to subprime investments while selectively disclosing more complete information to specific investors.

Later, in 2016, State Street paid $382 million to the resolve an SEC case alleging that it misled mutual funds and other custody clients by applying hidden markups to foreign currency exchange trades. Hidden markups seem to be a recurring theme for State Street.

Since 2010 the company has paid out another $400 million in cases brought by the SEC and state regulators as well as class action lawsuits involving its management of pensions and benefit plans.

Yet perhaps the most disturbing entry on the Violation Tracker list is a 2017 case in which State Street paid a $32 million penalty to the Justice Department to resolve charges that it engaged in a scheme to defraud a number of the bank’s clients by secretly applying commissions to billions of dollars of securities trades.

As in this year’s criminal case, State Street was allowed to wriggle out of those charges by signing a deferred prosecution agreement. That puts the company in the dubious group of corporations that, as a 2019 Public Citizen report showed, have been offered multiple DPAs or non-prosecution agreements.

The ability of a corporation to obtain multiple leniency agreements makes a mockery of DPAs and NPAs. These arrangements are justified as a way to encourage a wayward company to change it practices, yet the ability to obtain multiple get-out-of-jail-free agreements does nothing more than incentivize more misconduct.

SCOTUS Boosts Crooked Corporations

The U.S. Supreme Court has given a boost to crooked corporations in a ruling that restricts the powers of one of the federal government’s oldest regulatory agencies, the Federal Trade Commission, which has been operating since 1914. The Justices ruled unanimously that the FTC does not have the authority to go to court and win redress for unfair and deceptive business conduct. It must first go through a cumbersome administrative process.

Since the 1970s the FTC has been obtaining court injunctions against rogue companies and compelling them to provide monetary relief to consumers. In Violation Tracker we document nearly 500 cases brought by the agency since 2000, with total fines and payouts of more than $14 billion. More than a dozen of those cost companies more than $100 million.

Just the other day, the FTC announced it was sending more than $59 million collected on behalf of consumers who were victims of an allegedly deceptive scheme by Reckitt Benckiser Group and Indivior Inc. to thwart lower-priced generic competition with the branded drug Suboxone. Many of these enforcement actions may no longer be possible.

The high court ruling may prompt Congress to revise the law to allow the FTC to go back to using court injunctions. Yet for now the regulatory landscape is in flux. Corporations embroiled in disputes with the FTC, such as Facebook, are claiming that the agency lacks the authority to proceed. Facebook is still smarting from a previous FTC case from 2019 in which it paid a $5 billion penalty for privacy violations.

Given the similarities between the FTC Act and the law governing the Food and Drug Administration, there may be challenges to the FDA’s use of injunctions. The ruling is even being cited in disputes not involving federal agencies. A group of generic drug manufacturers being sued by state attorneys general for price-fixing is claiming that the ruling should also bar actions seeking injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act.

On the other hand, there are indications that the FTC may choose to partner with state AGs on consumer protection actions in areas other than antitrust, relying on their power to seek relief from corporations over issues such as unlawful debt collection and privacy violations.

Legal observers also believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau may help fill the gap created by SCOTUS, as least in financial sector cases, given that its authorizing legislation, the Dodd-Frank Act, explicitly allows it to sue for restitution and other relief without first going through lengthy administrative proceedings. It can also do so against a broader range of misconduct.

Nonetheless, it is disappointing to see the FTC and possibly other agencies lose the ability to bring prompt action against corporate miscreants. Business misconduct shows no signs of abating, so regulators need as many tools as possible to end the abuses and force corporations to compensate those who have been adversely affected.

Ending Corporate Impunity

Corporate America’s embrace of voting rights, racial justice and other social causes is laudable, but it is also designed to make us forget how much the private sector profited from the retrograde policies of the Trump Administration. This was not just a matter of the business tax cuts.

Thanks to deregulation and weakened enforcement, big business was able to operate with a much higher level of impunity. The latest evidence of this comes in a new report from Public Citizen documenting the declining volume of prosecutions of corporate crime during the Trump years.

Using data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Public Citizen finds that the number of federal prosecutions of corporate criminals fell to a new low of just 94 in fiscal year 2020. This was a drop of 20 percent from the year before, a plunge of two-thirds from the peak of 296 in 2000, and the lowest on record since the Commission started releasing corporate prosecution statistics in 1996.

While adopting a lackluster approach to prosecutions, the Justice Department was more inclined to offer rogue corporations leniency agreements. Employing data from the Corporate Prosecution Registry, Public Citizen points out that DOJ substantially increased its use of deferred prosecution and non-prosecution agreements in FY2020.

Connecting the two trends, Public Citizen finds that the leniency agreements amounted to 32 percent of the total of all cases against corporations, a record amount.

The report dispels any suggestion that declining prosecutions and increasing leniency agreements are signs that Corporate America has become better at obeying the law: “On the contrary, they are signs that, despite Trump’s ‘law and order’ rhetoric and his administration’s brutal crackdowns on immigrants, racial justice protestors and low-level offenders, the administration went out of its way to avoid prosecuting corporate criminals. The result is the creation of an environment of corporate impunity.”

The Public Citizen report focuses on criminal cases, but there were similar trends in civil enforcement. For example, the data in Violation Tracker shows that the DOJ’s civil division, which handles matters such as False Claims Act cases against rogue federal contractors, announced only 44 corporate pleas and settlements in 2019, down from 137 announced by the Obama DOJ in 2015.

Fortunately, these findings are now mainly a matter of historical interest. The current question is how things will change under the Biden Administration. Since Merrick Garland has been attorney general for a short time, it is too soon to reach any clear conclusions.

It is widely expected that DOJ will be taking a more aggressive stance. One major law firm advised its clients that white collar enforcement activity will “substantially increase,” adding: “Not only will the government take a more aggressive posture, but the proliferation of whistleblower programs and the creation of new enforcement tools means that prosecutors will be armed with more information and resources than ever. Companies should remain vigilant as risks shift and consider taking steps to ensure they adapt their compliance programs and controls accordingly.”

When corporations are made to feel they need to be more careful, we humans can breathe a bit easier.