- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- Glass, Lewis & Co. v. Paxton
Collection
Glass, Lewis & Co. v. Paxton
Glass, Lewis & Co. v. Paxton ↗
1:25-cv-01153W.D. Tex.3 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
08/29/2025
Decision
Motion for preliminary injunction denied.
–
In lawsuits brought by two proxy advisor firms, the federal district court for the Western District of Texas granted preliminary relief enjoining Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from enforcing S.B. 2337, a law that requires that a proxy advisor disclose to its clients and the subject company and publish statements on its website if its advice is “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” This requirement applies to advice that is “wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors,” including, among other factors, environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goals, factors, or investment principles and “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” The law was scheduled to take effect on September 1. In a text order issued after an August 29, 2025 hearing, the court found that the plaintiff firms had standing and satisfied the standard for a preliminary injunction.
07/24/2025
Complaint
Complaint filed.
A proxy advisor (Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (Glass Lewis)) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of Texas challenging a Texas law (S.B. 2337) that requires that a proxy advisor disclose to its clients and the subject company and publish statements on its website if its advice is “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” This requirement applies to advice that is “wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors,” including, among other factors, environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goals, factors, or investment principles and “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Glass Lewis asserted that S.B. 2337 violated the First Amendment and was void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., another proxy advisor, also filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/institutional-shareholder-services-inc-v-paxton/">lawsuit</a> challenging the law.