Texas v. BlackRock, Inc.

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas denied three large institutional investors’ motion to dismiss 13 states’ federal antitrust claims alleging that the investors collectively used their shareholdings in coal producers to reduce coal output. Regarding the claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which concerned the defendants’ use and acquisition of stock, the court found that the states sufficiently alleged that the defendants “acquired significant amounts of stock in coal companies and then used their market power to pressure the companies to decrease coal production.” The court cited “dozens of specific examples” of conduct supporting this theory, including the defendants’ joining of “climate initiatives” such as the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and Climate Action 100+ that involved public commitments to using stock to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change; the affirmation of these commitments through public statements; and actions such as votes against directors at coal companies for failing to have adequate climate risk disclosures. The court further found at this state of the litigation that the defendants did not qualify for the Clayton Act’s safe harbor for passive investors. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which concerned the defendants’ alleged agreement to work together, the court found that the states’ allegations included sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest the investors’ “agreed to collectively pressure coal companies to reduce the output of coal in the relevant markets and disclose future output information.” The court cited alleged “parallel conduct” such as the joining of a climate initiative within the same time period and “plus factors suggestive of an agreement” such as the investors’ “shared moral imperative to combat climate change.” The court also found that the states sufficiently alleged anticompetitive harm with allegations that the investors’ actions decreased coal output and increased prices in certain markets between 2019 and 2022. The court also allowed consumer protection claims to proceed against one of the investors—BlackRock, Inc.—under the laws of Texas, Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska. The court dismissed claims under Louisiana’s consumer protection law and one of Nebraska’s statutes because they did not apply to marketing and sale of securities but found that claims under the other state laws were not barred on this basis. The court further found that the states plausibly alleged that BlackRock made deceptive and material statements that misrepresented certain “non-ESG funds.” Because the states plausibly alleged federal antitrust claims, the court dismissed parallel state antitrust claims.

–

–