To explore these issues, Albert Knigge, Paul Sluijter, Lucas Dröge and Jessica den Dekker hosted an ESG Litigation Event on the proposition ‘ESG Litigation in the US and Europe – Two Worlds Apart?’ The seminar concluded with a lively debate on the differences and common ground in ESG policies and litigation within and between the US and Europe, with lawyers from various US firms.
The key question was discussed through a reflection on the Court of Appeal judgment in Milieudefensie v Shell Plc, which confirmed companies’ obligation to reduce carbon emissions. The judgment’s implications for other ESG-related issues and the claims brought on 28 March 2025 by Milieudefensie against ING were also considered. The seminar also addressed the issue of potentially conflicting judgments in the US and Europe based on the Greenpeace v Energy Transfer case, where Greenpeace was held liable for USD 667 million in a North Dakota (Morton) state court, whereas Greenpeace International started an Anti-SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) in the Netherlands against Energy Transfer, seeking a declaration in law that US federal and state proceedings are unlawful and seeking compensation for costs. These cases raise a myriad of national and international enforcement and recognition issues that were discussed during the seminar.
The developments and examples discussed seemed to confirm that, in a world in which an isolationist world view is becoming more dominant both in Europe and the US, the number of cross-border legal issues, especially when it comes to ESG litigation, enforcement and recognition, is set to increase.
