Upload
vanthuy
View
240
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Corporate Social Responsibility Statements:
Litigation Developments and Minimizing Risk
Presentation to Association of Corporate Counsel, National Capital
Region, April 13, 2016
Andrew S. Tulumello
Jason R. Meltzer
The presentation is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as
legal advice.
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
2
Professional Profiles
Jason R. Meltzer 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202.955.8676
Jason R. Meltzer is a senior associate in Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C. office. He
is a member of the firm’s Class Actions and Securities Litigation Practice Groups and
has experience in a wide range of complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis
on consumer products and securities class action defense.
Andrew (“Drew”) Tulumello is Co-Partner-in-Charge of Gibson Dunn’s Washington,
D.C. office. He is Co-Chair of the firm’s Class Actions Practice Group and Co-Chair
of its Sports Law Practice Group. Mr. Tulumello has extensive experience defending
class actions at both the trial and appellate levels.
Andrew S. Tulumello 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202.955.8657
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
3
Corporate Social Responsibility Statements
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
4
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation Consumer Protection Lawsuits
• Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc., No. C14-1283 RSL (W.D. Wash., Nov. 3, 2014)
• Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 15-cv-01364 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015)
• Hodson v. Mars, Inc., No. 15-cv-0440 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016)
• Wirth v. Mars, Inc., No. 15-cv-1470 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016)
• NCL v. Wal-Mart, JC Penney and The Children’s Place, No. 2015 CA 007731 B (D.C.
Super.), filed Oct. 8, 2015
Section 220 Books & Records Activity
• LAMPERS v. The Hershey Company, No. 7996 (Del. Ch. Mar. 19, 2014)
Securities Fraud Lawsuits
• In re Yum! Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, 73 F. Supp. 3d 846 (W.D. Ky. 2014), aff’d
Bondali v. Yum! Brands, 620 Fed. Appx. 483 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015)
• In re BP PLC, Sec. Litig., No. 4:12-cv-1256 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2013)
AG Investigations
• Exxon Mobile Subpoena (NYS Attorney General, November 4, 2015)
• Peabody Energy Settlement (NYS Attorney General, November 9, 2015)
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
5
Corporate Social Responsibility Statements
• CSR statements are typically contained in Sustainability Reports,
Employee Codes of Conduct, Supplier Codes, Statements of
Ethics/Principles and Commitments to Human Rights
documents.
• Often made pursuant to Global Reporting Initiative (GRI),
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and
International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) models and
standards.
• Sometimes included in securities filings and other public
statements to address investor interests.
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
6
Corporate Social Responsibility Statements
• Issues discussed include environmental sustainability, human
rights, responsible sourcing, compliance with applicable laws and
commitments to ethics.
• Statements sometimes respond to growing investor or consumer
interest in CSR issues (i.e., PWC, Forbes, and Nielsen studies).
• California Transparency In Supply Chains Act of 2010, Cal. Civ.
Code § 1714.43, requires retailers to disclose supply chain efforts
to combat human trafficking and forced labor.
• U.K. Modern Slavery Act 2015, requires companies to disclose
steps taken to ensure slavery and human trafficking are not
occurring in their supply chains or businesses.
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
7
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
Consumer Protection Lawsuits
1. Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc., (W.D. Wash.,
Nov. 3, 2014)
2. Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc., (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 9, 2015)
3. Hodson v. Mars, Inc., (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 17, 2016)
4. Wirth v. Mars, Inc., (C.D. Cal. Feb.
5, 2016)
5. National Consumers League v. Wal-
Mart, JC Penney and The
Children’s Place, (D.C. Super.),
filed Oct. 8, 2015
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
8
Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc./Northwest Dairy Ass’n , No.
No. C14-1283 (W.D. Wash.) – Complaint
• Challenged statements in CSR Report
suggesting workers and cows were treated
“with respect and in compliance with the
law.”
• Relied on examples of wage and other
lawsuits and complaints by Darigold
workers alleging that workers and cows
were mistreated.
• Claimed plaintiffs would not have purchased
Darigold products had they not been misled
by the report.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
9
Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc./Northwest Dairy Ass’n, No.
No. C14-1283 (W.D. Wash.) – Complaint Challenged statements included:
• Darigold’s “employment policies and practices demonstrate [its]
commitment to fair treatment of all employees wherever [it] operates”
and “at a minimum, [it] complies with local, state and federal laws.”
• “Our farmers’ dedication to producing high quality milk begins with
world class animal care;” they provide “healthy living conditions” for
cows; and follow a “rigorous quality assurance program to ensure
food safety and the highest quality products.”
• “The performance levels of . . . farmers are excellent” and “among
the most responsible in the nation with regard to animal well-being.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
10
Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc., No. C14-1283 (W.D. Wash.
Nov. 3, 2014) – Motion To Dismiss Granted
• “[I]n order to construe the CSR [Report] as a guarantee of
perfection . . . plaintiffs ignore the vast majority of the report, its
purpose, and its structure . . . .”
• “A reasonable consumer would not be deceived or misled into
believing that Darigold or its member farms had a perfect track
record on worker rights or animal health.”
• When read in context, the challenged statements were
“aspirational statements” or were not shown to be “false in any
material respect.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
11
Barber v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 15-cv-01364 (C.D.
Cal.) – Complaint
• Challenged Nestlé’s failure to disclose the use
of slave labor to provide fish for Fancy Feast
cat food.
• Relied on a New York Times article claiming
Fancy Feast contained fish caught by
indentured servants working on fishing boats
in waters between Thailand and Indonesia.
• Plaintiffs sought additional disclosures
regarding the use of slave labor in Nestlé’s
supply chain.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
12
Barber v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 15-cv-01364 (C.D.
Cal.) – Complaint
Challenged CSR website statements in Nestlé’s Corporate Business Principles,
Corporate Supplier Code, Responsible Sourcing Guidelines, and Nestle In
Society Report, including:
• “Nestlé requires its suppliers, agents, subcontractors and their employees to
demonstrate honesty, integrity and fairness, and to adhere to the Nestlé
Supplier Code of Conduct.”
• “Nestlé expects the Supplier to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations
. . . and strive to comply with international and industry standards and best
practices.”
• “Nestlé reserves the right to verify compliance with the Supplier Code.”
• “The Supplier must under no circumstances use, or in any other way benefit,
from forced labor.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
13
Barber v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 15-cv-01364 (C.D.
Cal. Dec. 9, 2015) – Dismissal With Prejudice
• Proposed additional disclosures were inconsistent with California’s
Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010, which provides safe harbor
against additional disclosures regarding the topics enumerated in § 1714.43.
• The CSR statements challenged merely “were aspirational and when read in
context were actually a nuanced and correct summary of [Nestlé’s] efforts to
combat forced labor.”
• Nestlé’s Supplier Code “makes clear that Nestle ‘asks its suppliers . . . to
comply with its requirements” and the Code “sets forth expectations for
suppliers.”
• “No reasonable consumer who reads the four documents could conclude that
Nestlé’s suppliers comply with Nestlé’s requirements in all circumstances.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
14
Hodson v. Mars, Inc./Mars Chocolate N.A., LLC ,
No. 15-0440 (N.D. Cal.) – Complaint
• Alleged omissions and misstatements
regarding forced and child labor used
in West Africa to source cocoa for
chocolate products.
• Relied on news reports documenting
plight of laborers, including children.
• Cited commitments over the past
decade by Chocolate Manufacturers
Association to enforce standards and
certifications preventing forced labor.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
15
Hodson v. Mars, Inc./Mars Chocolate N.A., LLC ,
No. 15-0440 (N.D. Cal.) – Complaint
• Complained that Chocolate Manufacturer’s Association and Mars
failed to honor their commitments to ethical sourcing practices.
• Alleged Mars had an affirmative duty to disclose forced labor in its
supply chain, in light of partial disclosures to the contrary.
• Challenged statements that: (1) “Freedom” is one of the company’s
five Human Rights principles; (2) “each supplier confirms that it
complies with the legal requirements and standards of its industry”;
and (3) Mars has the right to audit third-party suppliers.
• Cited studies reflecting consumer willingness to pay a premium for
products certified as “Fair Trade,” or “Good Working Conditions.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
16
Hodson v. Mars, Inc., No. 15-0440 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
17, 2016) – Dismissal With Prejudice
• Plaintiff abandoned his CSR statement challenges during briefing.
• “The terrible reality of labor practices in the cocoa fields of Côte
d’Ivoire notwithstanding, the FAL, UCL, and CLRA do not require
the disclosure Hodson seeks.”
• “No information about the Ivoirian cocoa farms’ labor practices in
Mars’s supply chain appears on the labels or advertisements for most
of Mars’s chocolate products.”
• “[M]anufacturers are duty-bound to disclose only information about a
product’s safety risks and product defects. The duty to disclose does
not extend to situations, as here, where information may persuade a
consumer to make different purchasing decisions.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
17
Wirth v. Mars, Inc., Mars Petcare US, and Iams
Co., No. 15-cv-1470 (C.D. Cal.) - Complaint
• Challenged Mars’s failure to disclose the use
of slave labor to provide fish for Iams cat food.
• Relied on New York Times article claiming
Iams contained fish caught by indentured
servants working on fishing boats in waters
between Thailand and Indonesia.
• Sought additional disclosures regarding the use
of slave labor in Mars’s supply chain.
• Challenged the same CSR statements
challenged in the Hodson/Mars chocolate case.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
18
Wirth v. Mars, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-1470 (C.D.
Cal. Feb. 5, 2016) – Dismissal With Prejudice
• “The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that ‘labor practices,’ including the
allegations here concerning forced labor in the supply chain, ‘do
matter in making consumer choices.’”
• “But it does not follow that Defendants have a duty to disclose the
nature of these labor practices – along with every other piece of
information that consumers deem important – when making
purchases.”
• “Absent any allegations concerning misrepresentations, the Court
cannot conclude Defendants had an independent and broad duty to
disclose information concerning the possibility of forced labor to
consumers.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
19
NCL v. Wal-Mart, JCPenney and The Children’s
Place, (D.C. Super.) – Complaint
• Challenges statements in codes of conduct and
standards for suppliers about supply chain factory
safety and working conditions, and processes for
auditing third-party suppliers for compliance.
• Claims statements were false or misleading based on
a building collapse in Bangladesh in April 2013 that
killed more than 1,000 people and injured more than
2,500.
• Alleges the retailers sourced garments from
factories in the collapsed building, but failed to
honor commitments regarding safety and audits.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
20
NCL v. Wal-Mart, JCPenney and The Children’s
Place, (D.C. Super.) - Complaint
• Cites to various accidents (mostly fires) at Bangladesh garment
factories over a decade to support claim that defendants should have
known Bangladesh garment factories were unsafe.
• Claims defendants should have known that Bangladesh factories
required significant oversight and auditing.
• Cites studies suggesting CSR issues are important to consumers and
can impact purchase decisions, particularly where representations are
part of labeling or advertising. (Studies focus on environmental
sustainability and treating company employees well).
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
21
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
Section 220 Books & Records Activity
1. Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System
(LAMPERS) v. The Hershey Company, No. 7996 (Del. Ch.
Mar. 19, 2014)
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
22
LAMPERS v. The Hershey Company, No. 7996
(Del. Ch.) – Complaint
• Demand and complaint for inspection
pursuant to 8 Del. C.§220 based on
belief that Hershey’s BOD permitted the
unlawful use of child labor in its
business model.
• Focuses on violation of child labor laws
in Ghana and Ivory Coast.
• Alleges violations of the California
Transparency in Supply Chains Act.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
23
LAMPERS v. The Hershey Company, (Del. Ch.
Mar. 18, 2014) – Motion to Dismiss Denied
• “In 2001 Hershey…signed the Harkin-Engel Protocol, which
established a goal of eliminating the worst forms of child labor in
the cocoa sectors in Ghana and the Ivory Coast.”
• “On October 3, 2011, Hershey’s announced that it would certify that
its chocolate products were free of cocoa tainted with child labor
and human trafficking violations by 2020.”
• “I think from all this, it is quite reasonable to infer…that right now
Hershey’s has to acknowledge that some of its cocoa is produced
through child labor as a result of individuals who were the victims
of human trafficking.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
24
LAMPERS v. The Hershey Company, (Del. Ch.
Mar. 18, 2014) – Motion to Dismiss Denied
• “One possible inference…is that Hershey’s cocoa sustainability
efforts, which admittedly and necessarily put Hershey in contact
with farmers in West Africa, results in Hershey knowing of instances
involving the use of trafficked children on cocoa farms in Ghana
that would have triggered the duty to inform.”
• “[T]he allegations…support a reasonable inference that Hershey’s
products contain cocoa and cocoa-derived ingredients that were the
result of child labor and human trafficking.”
• “There’s also a reasonable inference . . . that the board knows some
of its cocoa and cocoa-derived ingredients are sourced from farms
that exploit child labor and use trafficked persons.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
25
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
Securities Fraud Lawsuits
1. In re Yum! Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, 73 F. Supp. 3d
846 (W.D. Ky. 2014), aff’d sub nom Bondali v. Yum! Brands,
Inc., 620 Fed. Appx. 483 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015)
2. In re BP PLC, Securities Litigation, No. 4:12-cv-1256, 2013
WL 6383968 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2013)
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
26
In re Yum! Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation , No.
13-CV-00463 (W.D. Ky.) - Complaint
• Yum! previously had problems with food
safety in 2005-2008 and made CSR and
other safety statements in response.
• In 2012, reports surfaced regarding supply
chain food safety problems, and investors
filed suit.
• Brought Section 10(b) and 20(a) Exchange
Act claims against Yum! challenging
statements about supply chain food safety
measures and audits.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
27
In re Yum! Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation , No.
13-CV-00463 (W.D. Ky.) - Complaint
Challenged representations:
1. in 10-Ks and other filings about standards for suppliers,
conducting business in an ethical manner, and adherence to
strict food quality and safety standards.
2. in Yum!’s Code of Conduct stating that “food safety is a
primary responsibility . . . and nothing, including cost, is
allowed to interfere,” and “Yum maintains strict specifications
for raw products,” “adheres to a strict food safety program,” and
“continually monitors and improves its procedures and practices
to ensure food safety.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
28
In re Yum! Brands Sec. Litig., 73 F. Supp. 3d 846
(W.D. Ky. 2014) – Dismissal with Prejudice
• The statements were “too squishy, too untethered to anything
measurable, to communicate anything that a reasonable person would
deem important to a securities investment decision.”
• “[V]ague, subjective assertions, such as ‘strict’ food safety standards,
watching food safety ‘very closely,’ having the ‘right’ suppliers and
eliminating ‘inferior suppliers,’ constituted the mere opinions of
management and hold no obvious, objective meaning to a reasonable
investor.”
• “The adoption of a code of conduct does not imply that a corporation
or its employees always comply with the code’s guidelines.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
29
Bondali v. Yum! Brands, Inc., 620 Fed. Appx. 483
(6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015) – Dismissal Affirmed
• “[T]hat a few suppliers did not adhere to the standards does not mean
Yum did not have the standards in place, and it is not reasonable to
interpret Yum’s statements as a guarantee that its suppliers would, in all
instances, abide by the corporate standards and protocols.”
• “A code of conduct is not a guarantee that a corporation will adhere to
everything set forth,” but rather “a declaration of corporate
aspirations.”
• “[T]o treat a corporate code of conduct as a statement of what a
corporation will do, rather than what a corporation aspires to do, would
turn the purpose of a code of conduct on its head.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
30
In re BP PLC, Securities Litigation, No. 4:12-cv-
1256 (S.D. Tex.) - Complaint
• Following 2005 explosion at Texas
refinery, BP made numerous statements
about safety reform efforts, including in
sustainability reports.
• After Deepwater Horizon explosion and
spill in 2010, investors filed suit.
• Brought Section 10(b) and 20(a) Exchange
Act claims against BP challenging
statements about safety efforts, spill
preparedness and response capabilities.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
31
In re BP PLC, Securities Litigation, No. 4:12-cv-
1256 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2013) – Dismissed In-Part
• Plaintiffs adequately alleged falsity for statements in BP’s
Sustainability Reviews and Reports about implementing its safety
operations management systems (OMS), including:
– “OMS covers all aspects of our operations” and “will apply to all
operations by the end of 2010.”
– “OMS is a cornerstone of achieving safe, reliable and
responsible operations at every BP operation.”
– “Operating facilities have the capacity and resources to respond
to spill incidents.”
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
32
In re BP PLC, Securities Litigation, No. 4:12-cv-
1256 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2013) – Dismissed In-Part
• Plaintiffs alleged that annual sustainability reports on BP’s website
were “intended to reach shareholders and the investing public.”
• The “forward looking statements” doctrine was inapplicable because
the statements were “not predictions of future events,” but rather
“statements of existing fact.”
• The “bespeaks caution” doctrine did not apply because “cautionary
language” was “not sufficient” to render the statements immaterial.
• Vague statements about beginning to roll out OMS system were “too
general and ephemeral” to support a theory of falsity.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
33
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
State AG Investigations
• Exxon Mobile (NYAG)
• Peabody Energy (NYAG)
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
34
Exxon Mobile Climate Change Investigation
(November 2015)
• Subpoena issued to Exxon in
November 2015.
• Investigation focuses on climate
change and fossil fuel environmental
effects.
• Seeks a wide variety of records dating
back to January 1977.
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
35
Exxon Mobile Climate Change Investigation
(November 2015)
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
• Exxon suspected of funding outside groups to undermine
climate change science, while its in-house scientists
outlined potential consequences to company executives.
• Exxon stated that it “unequivocally reject[s] the allegations
that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate change research.”
• Other states, including Massachusetts, California and
Vermont have recently joined the investigation.
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
36
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
• Investigation launched in 2007 under NYAG Cuomo. Renewed
in 2013 with new demands for information from Peabody.
• Focused on statements denying Peabody’s ability to predict the
impact of climate change and increased regulation on its
business.
• Based on allegations that the company and its consultants
internally projected severe impacts from potential regulations.
Peabody Energy Climate Change Settlement
(November 2015)
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
37
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation
• In November 2015, Peabody and NYAG announced a settlement.
• NYAG press release stated that Peabody violated New York laws
prohibiting false and misleading conduct in the company’s
statements to the public and investors about climate change risks
and potential regulatory responses.
• Peabody agreed to revise its disclosures to more fully outline the
impact of potential climate change regulations on its business to
end the investigation.
• The settlement does not include any monetary relief or penalties,
or criminal charges.
Peabody Energy Climate Change Settlement
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
38
Recent Developments In CSR Litigation Consumer Protection Lawsuits
• Ruiz v. Darigold, Inc., No. C14-1283 RSL (W.D. Wash., Nov. 3, 2014)
• Barber v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 15-cv-01364 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015)
• Hodson v. Mars, Inc., No. 15-cv-0440 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016)
• Wirth v. Mars, Inc., No. 15-cv-1470 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016)
• NCL v. Wal-Mart, JC Penney and The Children’s Place, No. 2015 CA 007731 B (D.C. Super.),
filed Oct. 8, 2015
Section 220 Books & Records Activity
• LAMPERS v. The Hershey Company, No. 7996 (Del. Ch. Mar. 19, 2014)
Securities Fraud Lawsuits
• In re Yum! Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, 73 F. Supp. 3d 846 (W.D. Ky. 2014), aff’d
Bondali v. Yum! Brands, 620 Fed. Appx. 483 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2015)
• In re BP PLC, Sec. Litig., No. 4:12-cv-1256 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 5, 2013)
AG Investigations
• Exxon Mobile Subpoena (NYS Attorney General, November 4, 2015)
• Peabody Energy Settlement (NYS Attorney General, November 9, 2015)
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
39
CSR Statements: Minimizing Risk
The Path Forward – Best Practices
• Include disclaimer language where CSR initiatives and codes of
conduct are described, noting that initiatives and standards are
not guarantees or promises that all goals will be met and all
policies followed.
• Review CSR statements for overstatements, misstatements, or
concrete statements about initiatives that might be rendered
misleading by an adverse supplier or other event.
• Understand that regulators may target statements relating to “hot
topics” of social concern.
• Avoid promises to hit specific CSR targets by certain dates.
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
40
• Keep statements aspirational and forward looking.
• Favor words like “should,” “expect,” or “strive,” as opposed to
assertions that the company, its employees, or its suppliers
“are” in compliance or “do” comply” with applicable laws and
standards.
• Favor words like “aspires” rather than “promises” or
“guarantees” to meet targets or standards.
• Talk about “estimates” or “approximations” in terms of
measuring progress on sustainability and other goals where
possible, as opposed to stating concrete measurements.
CSR Statements: Minimizing Risk
The Path Forward – Best Practices
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
41
• Generally, keep statements regarding CSR initiatives out of
securities and other public filings directed to shareholders.
• Be very careful about discussing CSR initiatives on product
packaging
• Understand that CSR statements are riskiest when included in
SEC filings or on product labels. Website statements may still
be risky, particularly where products are sold through
websites.
• Avoid suggesting that CSR initiatives and statements are
“material” to the company, investors, or consumers.
CSR Statements: Minimizing Risk
The Path Forward – Best Practices
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
42
• Educate individuals responsible for updating CSR documents
about the growing risk of lawsuits and investigations based on
alleged misstatements.
• Confirm company has adequate diligence procedures in place
with respect to information in sustainability, GRI and other
reports about progress on CSR goals.
• Consider internal and external auditors for concrete facts or
numbers listed in CSR documents and reports.
• Members of legal department should review draft public
facing CSR statements.
CSR Statements: Minimizing Risk
The Path Forward – Best Practices
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
43
CSR Statements: Minimizing Risk
The Path Forward – Best Practices
<Presentation Title/Client Name>
44
Professional Profiles
Jason R. Meltzer 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202.955.8676
Jason R. Meltzer is a senior associate in Gibson Dunn’s Washington, D.C. office. He
is a member of the firm’s Class Actions and Securities Litigation Practice Groups and
has experience in a wide range of complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis
on consumer products and securities class action defense.
Andrew (“Drew”) Tulumello is Co-Partner-in-Charge of Gibson Dunn’s Washington,
D.C. office. He is Co-Chair of the firm’s Class Actions Practice Group and Co-Chair
of its Sports Law Practice Group. Mr. Tulumello has extensive experience defending
class actions at both the trial and appellate levels.
Andrew S. Tulumello 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202.955.8657