March, 01 2023, 11:36am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Arielle Swernoff: arielle@stopthemoneypipeline.com,
Ginny Cleaveland: ginny.cleaveland@sierraclub.org,
Coalition of 240+ Organizations to Push for Yes Votes on Climate, Indigenous Rights Shareholder Resolutions at Financial Firms
Resolutions at major North American banks and several insurers push companies to phase-out financing of fossil fuel expansion, protect Indigenous rights, and institute better climate policies
NEW YORK
A coalition of over 240 climate, justice, and multi-issue organizations announced their support of four shareholder resolutions filed at major US and Canadian banks and insurance companies this spring. The resolutions include requiring banks and insurance companies to phase out their financing of companies engaged in fossil fuel expansion, report on projects that could violate Indigenous rights, use absolute emissions rather than emissions intensity targets, disclose 2030 transition plans, and hold directors accountable at banks that are not aligned with 1.5°C pathways. The resolutions were filed by a variety of investors, including the New York City and New York State pension funds, the Sierra Club Foundation, Trillium Asset Management, As You Sow, and others.
Ahead of the companies’ annual general meetings, Stop the Money Pipeline, a coalition of over 200 organizations, is launching a ‘Shareholder Showdown’ campaign to encourage investors to vote yes on the resolutions and against failing directors. Stop the Money Pipeline is also pushing banks and insurance companies to pass policies, ahead of their AGMs, that would prohibit lending, underwriting and insuring to corporations engaged in fossil fuel expansion.
“Shareholders have immediate opportunities to hold banks accountable for their role in the climate crisis by supporting this full slate of resolutions, and by voting against corporate directors failing to manage climate risks. Major investors like BlackRock and CalPERS must support these critical votes, and if they don’t, it will reveal their abject failure to understand both the systemic risk climate change poses to their portfolios and their fiduciary duty to address it. Their clients will be watching,” said Jessye Waxman, Senior Campaign Representative in the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign.
FOSSIL FUEL PHASE OUT
The fossil fuel phase-out resolutions are updated versions of resolutions filed last year at the six largest American banks and three major insurers calling for an end to financing and underwriting of fossil fuel expansion. The resolutions clarify that the request is to phase-out new fossil fuel financing and insurance coverage, rather than abruptly end client relationships, which some banks and insurers used as an excuse the previous year. Proponents believe these updates will significantly boost shareholder support.
According to an influential report released by the International Energy Agency in 2021, as well as a growing consensus of the world’s leading scientists and energy experts, in order to have a fifty percent chance of curtailing global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and limiting the worst impacts of the climate crisis, investment in new fossil fuel supply needs to cease.
Despite this clear warning, and despite public pledges to be Paris-aligned, the six largest American banks – JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs – provided nearly $500 billion in lending and underwriting to the 100 corporations most aggressively expanding fossil fuel operations since 2016. Meanwhile, US-based insurance giants Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers are among the top insurance providers to the global oil and gas industry..
These resolutions were filed by the Sierra Club Foundation at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo; by Trillium Asset Management at Bank of America; by Harrington Investments at Citigroup; by Stand.earth at Royal Bank of Canada; and by Green Century Funds at Chubb, The Hartford, and Travelers.
“Financial institutions are trying to project this image that they're good with money - but how good are you with money if you end up destroying your own house for profit? That's exactly what Wall Street is doing by financing unlimited fossil fuel expansion. People are fighting back, and now shareholders have a chance to amplify the demands of frontline communities. Curbing expansion is fiscally sound, socially responsible, and shows that they value investing in resilient communities and a just energy future." - Aditi Sen, Climate and Energy Program Director at Rainforest Action Network
"The planet is running out of time and the banks are running out of excuses--everyone from the Pope to the Secretary General of the UN have called on them finally to act with clarity and conviction to help with the planet's greatest crisis, and shareholders should demand no less,” said writer and activist Bill McKibben.
INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
The Indigenous rights resolution at Citigroup, filed by Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace calls for a report on the effectiveness of bank practices, policies, and performance indicators in respecting internationally-recognized human rights standards for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in its existing and proposed general corporate and project financing.
In recent years, Citi has provided financing for projects and companies that clearly violate Indigenous rights: they were the lead financier of the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016; provided over $5 billion to Enbridge, enabling the Line 3 and Line 5 pipelines; and helped GeoPark secure over $650 million for oil drilling in the Colombian Amazon despite a lack of consent from local Indigenous peoples and a clear history on behalf of the company of damaging Indigenous lands, health, and livelihoods.
Domini Impact Investments filed a resolution at Chubb requesting a report describing how human rights risks and impacts are evaluated and incorporated in the company’s underwriting process, specifically calling attention to the extent to which Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is considered in the underwriting process.
“Free Prior and Informed Consent means actual meaningful engagement with all impacted Indigenous communities and obtaining actual documented consent from impacted communities, otherwise the projects do not happen. The era of these financial institutions paying lip service to Indigenous rights, human rights, and environmental justice is over it is time to truly respect the rights of Indigenous peoples,” said Matt Remle from Mazaska Talks.
"Indigenous frontline environmental defenders continue to bear the brunt of the climate crisis, all while facing severe bodily threats for their collective resistance against the industries most responsible for it. Due to pervasive oil and gas extraction, made possible by unmitigated fossil financing, communities’ livelihoods and lands remain threatened. Investors and financial institutions must uphold Indigenous rights, human rights, and climate at the forefront of its agenda," said Mary Mijares, Fossil Finance Campaigner at Amazon Watch
ABSOLUTE EMISSIONS TARGETS
A third resolution, filed by the New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and three of the New York City Retirement Systems (the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Teachers’ Retirement System, and Board of Education Retirement System) at Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Royal Bank of Canada calls on the banks to disclose absolute emissions targets for 2030. Citi and Wells Fargo already report absolute emissions reductions.
These banks currently have made emissions intensity pledges, an accounting trick that would allow banks to increase their financed emissions overall while reducing the amount of emissions per dollar financed in the fossil fuel sector. In order to be Paris-aligned, emissions must decrease absolutely. These resolutions would hold banks to a science-based standard for meeting their stated climate targets.
“Experts such as the United Nations High-Level Expert Group have made it clear that for climate commitments to be taken seriously companies must use absolute emissions metrics when setting climate targets,” said Stop the Money Pipeline coalition co-director, Alec Connon, “Yet, most of the country’s largest banks have set their climate targets using far weaker carbon intensity metrics. By voting yes on these resolutions, shareholders can help end this practice of greenwashing from some of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuels.”
TRANSITION PLANS
These resolutions, filed by As You Sow at JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley, call on banks to publicly disclose their 2030 plans for transitioning their lending and investment portfolios away from fossil fuels. A transition plan could include, for example, disclosure of clients’ estimated annual reductions and how the bank plans to achieve remaining reductions. Additional actions may include client and employee incentives or disincentives; setting requirements, including loan approval guidelines, investment and underwriting priorities or prohibitions; and policies or
guidelines that otherwise restrict, limit, or condition bank business activities, among others.
DIRECTOR VOTES
Investors are encouraged to vote against the reelection of directors responsible for climate oversight at institutions that have failed to align targets and lending and underwriting policies with credible 1.5°C low/no overshoot scenarios.
Directors are responsible for oversight of strategic planning, including management of climate risks. As climate risk grows both as an economy-wide systemic risk and as a sector-specific risk for banks, board directors are failing in their fiduciary duties when companies under their oversight fail to adopt and execute comprehensive climate risk management policies. Where issuers have failed to adopt and disclose climate policies that align with 1.5°C pathways, it indicates that directors responsible for such oversight are either unwilling or unable to successfully lead the company through the decarbonization transition. Investors are encouraged to vote against such directors.
Additional members of the Stop the Money Pipeline coalition released the following statements:
“Public pensions are meant to be the longest-term investors, yet they’re doing business with the very banks financing climate chaos,” said Amy Gray, Stand.earth Climate Finance Senior Strategist. “Pension funds must live up to their fiduciary duty, and protect pensioners and climate alike, by wielding their institutional investor power for climate resolutions at banks’ shareholder meetings this Spring.”
“As communities of color are literally fighting for our lives on the frontlines of the climate crisis, U.S banks continue funding the fossil fuel industry. These banks target communities, like mine, treating us as collateral damage to corporate profiteering. This needs to stop. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is unsustainable and damaging to our health and environment. We must shift our focus to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower, which are cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable in the long-term. Banks should invest in energy-efficiency measures, such as LED lighting and energy-efficient appliances, to reduce our energy consumption and carbon footprint. These steps are necessary to ensure a healthier and more sustainable future for all.” - Roishetta Ozane, Founder and CEO of the Vessel Project
"Climate change is an existential crisis that can overwhelm a person in scale and size, impossible to address. Big bank shareholders possess an enormous amount of influence on the world’s emissions. A roomful of people can impact the disastrous course we are currently on. No more lip service or empty greenwashing — we need action, now.” Tara Houska, Giniw Collective.
“Right now, people across Canada and North America are paying the costs of Royal Bank of Canada’s misguided fossil fuel financing through devastating fires and floods. Instead of greenwashing and redwashing, RBC has the opportunity to step into real leadership and end fossil fuel expansion financing at its April 5 shareholder meeting. Science and justice make it clear: for any shot at curbing the worst of climate destruction, there can be no new fossil fuel projects. We call on all shareholders – from retail investors to big pension funds – to support this resolution, and direct RBC to align its financing with its rhetoric of honoring Indigenous sovereignty and acting on the climate crisis.” - Richard Brooks, Stand.earth Climate Finance Director
“In Wells Fargo’s Indigenous People Statement it states that it “recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources, including air and water, upon which they depend”, and yet it finances projects that harm those lands and natural resources, including air and water, upon which they depend.” – Troy Horton, Extinction Rebellion Phoenix
“This shareholder season it’s crucial that investors support linked resolutions filed with banks and insurance companies: to ensure that Indigenous Peoples’ rights that are impacted by the fossil fuel industry are respected; to phase out financing and underwriting for the expansion of the fossil fuel sector; and to urge banks to align their financing with science-based emission reduction targets.” - Fran Teplitz, Executive Co-director, Green America
“At a time when financial institutions are STILL accelerating climate instability with their investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure, it is imperative that shareholders exercise their right to hold their directors accountable. In the short term, this is a moral necessity. In the long term, it is good business.” - John Seakwood, Organizer, Rivers & Mountains GreenFaith Circle
“As insurance companies fuel the climate crisis by continuing to invest in and underwrite new fossil fuel projects, shareholders are stepping up to hold the industry accountable. Insurers must adopt new policies that phase out insurance coverage for any new fossil fuel projects and align themselves with the Paris Accords. - Tom Swan, Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG).
“Big banks must stop pumping money into an industry that is driving the climate crisis. As people around the world face extreme weather disasters, threats to public health, and systemic economic risk, institutions such as JPMorgan Chase are ignoring climate science by providing billions of dollars in financing to fossil fuel companies that continue to expand their production of oil and gas. To safeguard communities, investors, and the global economy, shareholders should insist that banks incentivize swift and deep cuts in heat-trapping emissions to limit climate change harms and facilitate a just transition to a clean energy economy,” said Kathy Mulvey, Director of the Climate Accountability Campaign at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“It is time shareholders start looking at their families and how water and air pollution will affect them versus their bottom dollar. Money can’t buy clean, pure water.At a time in the world when climate change, seasons, disasters are moving at warp speed, we need these banks, corporations, funding institutions to stop being a machine. It is all across the globe, capitalism, consumerism, it’s all just superficial. These Banking Industry leaders, or CEO’s are not doing it for the right thing. They are all trendy and say they have diversity, equity, justice and inclusion committees, making words look great on paper, but are still plowing through BIPOC communities as warp speed, as the government looks on. I ask would you poison your own grandmother, then why do it to our grandmothers?” - Dr. Crystal Cavalier - Co Founder and CEO of 7 Directions of Service.
The Stop the Money Pipeline coalition is over 160 organizations strong holding the financial backers of climate chaos accountable.
LATEST NEWS
'Appalling': Biden Administration Declines to Force Big Pharma to Cut Price of Prostate Cancer Drug
"This decision effectively rubber-stamps continued Big Pharma abuse," said one Democratic lawmaker.
Mar 21, 2023
Patient advocates on Tuesday blasted the Biden administration's refusal to compel the manufacturer of a lifesaving prostate cancer drug developed completely with public funds to lower its nearly $190,000 annual price tag.
In 2021, prostate cancer patient Eric Sawyer petitioned U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to grant march-in rights—under which the government can grant patent licenses to companies other than a drug's manufacturer—for enzalutamide, which is sold under the brand name Xtandi by Pfizer and Japanese pharmaceutical giant Astellas.
The drug's development was 100% taxpayer-funded. Yet a one-year supply of Xtandi currently costs $189,800 in the United States, or up to five times more than its price in other countries.
HHS' National Institutes of Health (NIH) said Tuesday that it "does not believe that use of the march-in authority would be an effective means of lowering the price of the drug."
"What the Biden administration is saying is that charging U.S. residents three to six times more than any other high-income country is reasonable."
The agency added that it "will pursue a whole-of-government approach informed by public input to ensure the use of march-in authority is consistent with the policy and objective of the Bayh-Dole Act," a reference to legislation meant to promote the commercialization and public availability of government-funded inventions.
James Love, director of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International, called the administration's rejection "appalling."
"What the Biden administration is saying is that charging U.S. residents three to six times more than any other high-income country is reasonable," he wrote.
U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement that he is "extremely disappointed that the Biden administration denied a petition by prostate cancer patients to substantially reduce the price of Xtandi."
"This is a drug that was invented with taxpayer dollars by scientists at UCLA and can be purchased in Canada for one-fifth the U.S. price," Sanders added. "The Japanese drugmaker Astellas, which made $1 billion in profits in 2021, has raised the price of this drug by more than 75%... How many prostate cancer patients will die because they cannot afford this unacceptable price?"
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said in a statement:
Today's decision is a blow to prostate cancer patients, their families, and taxpayers. Developed with U.S. taxpayer research dollars, Xtandi costs American patients $180,000 a year—as much as six times as much as patients in other countries. This excessive price gouging cost taxpayers $2 billion to cover Medicare beneficiaries' treatment in 2020 alone. The Biden administration has missed yet another opportunity to do something meaningful to lower prescription drug costs and protect taxpayer investments.
The administration's position "protects monopolists over taxpayers and patients, despite clear statutory authority and reasonableness to intervene," Doggett added. "This decision effectively rubber-stamps continued Big Pharma abuse."
In a move that Public Citizen president Robert Weissman called "pathetic," HHS and the Department of Commerce announced Tuesday that they would "pursue a whole-of-government approach to review... march-in authority as laid out in the Bayh-Dole Act" by forming an interagency working group.
The group "will develop a framework for implementation of the march-in provision that clearly articulates guiding criteria and processes for making determinations where different factors, including price, may be a consideration in agencies' assessments."
In a statement, Becerra said that the administration is "committed to increasing access to healthcare and lowering costs."
"March-in authority is a powerful tool designed to ensure that the benefits of the American taxpayers' investment in research and development are reasonably accessible to the public," he added. "We look forward to updates from the Bayh-Dole Interagency Working Group, and at my direction, HHS will review the findings, engage the public, and better define how HHS could effectively utilize our authority moving forward."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Urge Treasury Chief to Crack Down on Rich Tax Dodgers
"The Treasury Department can and should exercise the full extent of its regulatory authority to limit this blatant abuse of our tax system by the ultrawealthy."
Mar 21, 2023
Four U.S senators this week called on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to use her existing authority to go after American billionaires and multimillionaires who "use trusts to shift wealth to their heirs tax-free, dodging federal estate and gift taxes."
"They are doing this in the open: Their wealth managers are bragging about how their tax dodging tricks will be more effective in the current economy," stressed Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
"While we look forward to continuing to partner with you on legislative solutions," the senators wrote to Yellen, "the Treasury Department can and should exercise the full extent of its regulatory authority to limit this blatant abuse of our tax system by the ultrawealthy."
Their letter to the Treasury leader, dated Monday and first reported by CBS MoneyWatch Tuesday, highlights that "only the wealthiest American families" are asked to pay transfer taxes such as the estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax.
As the letter lays out:
Tax avoidance through grantor trusts starts with the ultrawealthy putting assets into a trust with the intention of transferring them to heirs. Grantor trusts are trusts where the grantor retains control over the assets, and the structures of some of these grantor trusts allow the transfer of massive sums tax-free. Tax planning via grantor trusts, including grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs), is a kind of shell game, with a wealthy person and their wealth managers able to pass assets back and forth in ways that effectively pass wealth to heirs while minimizing tax liability.
Some of the wealthiest families further compound this tax avoidance with perpetual dynasty trusts, which can be used to shield assets from transfer tax liability indefinitely. For example, aggressive valuation discounts can artificially reduce the value of assets transferred into a trust below the GST tax exemption threshold, after which the assets can grow in perpetuity within a trust exempt from transfer tax.
"The ultrawealthy at the top of the socioeconomic ladder live by different rules than the rest of America, especially when it comes to our tax system," the letter charges. "As the richest Americans celebrate and take advantage of these favorable tax opportunities, middle-class families struggle with inflation and Republicans threaten austerity measures and the end of Social Security and Medicare."
To help force the richest Americans to "pay their fair share" in taxes, the senators are calling on Treasury to revoke a pair of tax code rulings from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); require GRATs to have a minimum remainder value; reissue family limited partnership regulations; clarify that intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs) are not entitled to stepped-up basis; and put out clarifying regulations on certain valuation rules for estate and gift taxes.
The senators also sent a series of questions—about potential administrative action, how much is estimated to be held in grantor trusts, and how much could be raised from cracking down on abuse—and requested a response from Treasury by April 3.
Their letter comes after President Joe Biden earlier this month introduced a budget blueprint for fiscal year 2024 that would hike taxes on the rich—proposed policies praised by progressive experts and advocates as "fair, popular, and long overdue."
Yellen last week appeared before the Senate Finance Committee—of which Warren and Whitehouse are members—to testify about the administration's proposal. She said in part that "our proposed budget builds on our economic progress by making smart, fiscally responsible investments. These investments would be more than fully paid for by requiring corporations and the wealthiest to pay their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden DOL Praised for Historic Suit Over Using Debt Threat to Stop Workers From Quitting
The department's "action against predatory stay-or-pay contracts sends a monumental message to employers: Obey the law or face repercussions," said the head of Towards Justice.
Mar 21, 2023
Workers' rights advocates are applauding the Biden administration this week for filing a historic lawsuit against a Brooklyn-based healthcare staffing agency for coercive contracts that allegedly violate federal labor law.
Biden's Department of Labor (DOL) says in a complaint filed against Advanced Care Staffing (ACS) and CEO Sam Klein in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that "in flagrant disregard" of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the company "has entered into contracts purporting to require employees to complete at least three years of full-time work for ACS in order to retain their wages."
"The contracts warn employees that if they leave ACS's employ before three years' time, they will face ACS and its lawyers in an arbitration behind closed doors, where ACS will demand that employees kick back much of their hard-earned wages—including wages to which they are entitled under federal law," the complaint continues.
"Under this scheme, the pay that ACS promises its employees may be converted into nothing more than a loan that employees must repay with interest and fees, leaving some employees with no compensation at all, much less the wages required by the FLSA," the document adds. "The FLSA prohibits an employer from holding employees' wages hostage, allowing employees to keep their wages free and clear only if employees remain in the service of their employer."
The DOL, led by acting Secretary Julie Su, aims not only to end this "unlawful conduct" but also "to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages due to the former employees from whom ACS has already initiated arbitrations, and to restrain defendants from withholding unpaid wages from their former employees."
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda reiterated in a statement Monday that "federal law forbids employers from clawing back wages earned by employees, for employers' own benefit."
"Employers cannot use workers as insurance policies to unconditionally guarantee future profit streams. Nor can employers use arbitration agreements to shield unlawful practices," Nanda said. "The Department of Labor will do everything in its power to make sure employees are being paid their hard-earned wages, and to safeguard them from these types of exploitative practices."
Bloomberg last September reported on Benzor Shem Vidal, a nurse who immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines and took legal action against ACS for forcing him to work in "brutal and dangerous conditions," including simultaneously caring for 40 patients.
As Bloomberg detailed:
Under Vidal's contract, Advanced Care Staffing could sue him in arbitration for damages if he quit within three years of starting work—and make him pay the legal costs, according to the complaint in federal court in Brooklyn. The conditions were so onerous that they violate human trafficking laws meant to protect people from being exploited for labor, Vidal said.
"Mr. Vidal believed it was impossible for him to provide adequate care to patients but was also terrified to resign," his lawyers wrote. "He knew that his contract with Advanced Care Staffing purported to allow the company to pursue legal action against him, with potentially ruinous financial consequences, if he decided to terminate his employment."
Advanced Care Staffing did not immediately respond to an inquiry. The company has placed thousands of employees at facilities in New York and surrounding states, according to its website.
The DOL complaint lays out his experience over several pages and concludes that "defendants have a policy and practice of entering into contracts with employees with identical or substantially similar contract provisions to the 2022 contract with Vidal."
Celebrating the new case against ACS, Towards Justice executive director David Seligman declared Tuesday that "DOL's action against predatory stay-or-pay contracts sends a monumental message to employers: Obey the law or face repercussions."
"A fundamental premise of our labor laws is that employers pay workers, and not the other way around," said Seligman. "This lawsuit builds on a multiagency effort from the Biden administration to curb coercive contracts that rob workers of bargaining power. We look forward to what's next."
As Seligman noted in a series of tweets, other actions include the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last June launching an inquiry into practices and products that may leave workers indebted to their employers, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in January proposing a ban on noncompete clauses.
After noting that the DOL is taking on the ACS case as a minimum wage fight, Seligman said another important aspect is the department's allegation that the company's "arbitration requirements violate federal law too, not just because the employer is attempting to shield unlawful practices but also because the arbitration requirement itself shifts costs onto workers."
The DOL complaint states that ACS's arbitration and contract demands "have an impermissible chilling effect on their employees' ability to effectively vindicate their federal statutory rights, including the protection to be free from an unsafe or hazardous workplace, and to obtain unpaid wages due."
Student Borrower Protection Center senior policy adviser Chris Hicks on Tuesday stressed that such problems stretch far beyond one company, saying that "whether it's training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs) or stay-or-pay contracts, employers are using debt as a tool of coercion to force workers to stay in low-paying, unsafe jobs."
Hicks also highlighted that "the Biden administration has been strengthening its whole-of-government approach to ensure workers are able to fully and freely exercise their rights—including their right to depart without the looming threat of debt."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.