Greenpeace International’s legal counsel, Rubicon Impact and Litigation, has issued a formal legal warning to Dutch notary and law firm Loyens & Loeff, arguing that the firm may be in violation of professional obligations by assisting JBS, the world’s largest meat producer, in its corporate restructuring. The warning details allegations that Loyens & Loeff’s involvement could be breaching the Dutch Notaries Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act. The letter comes at a time when JBS is preparing to relocate its corporate headquarters to the Netherlands ahead of its planned listing on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Greenpeace’s concerns stem from JBS’s notorious track record in environmental damage, deforestation, and ties to corruption, all of which the environmental group argues could implicate Loyens & Loeff in facilitating activities harmful to both the environment and society at large.
Ethical Responsibilities of Legal Professionals
Under Dutch law, legal and financial service providers, including notaries and law firms, are bound by stringent due diligence requirements aimed at preventing their involvement in financial crimes such as money laundering and corruption. These obligations extend to the identification and rejection of clients whose activities present significant ethical or legal risks. In this case, Greenpeace argues that Loyens & Loeff’s participation in JBS’s restructuring and potential NYSE listing fails to meet these ethical standards. The firm’s role in this process may expose it to accusations of facilitating harmful corporate practices, potentially undermining the firm’s reputation and professional integrity. Furthermore, Greenpeace has reported the issue to the Bureau Financieel Toezicht (BFT), the Dutch financial regulatory body, urging an investigation into Loyens & Loeff’s involvement in JBS’s corporate activities.
JBS’s NYSE Listing and Heightened Scrutiny
JBS’s efforts to list on the NYSE have faced strong opposition from various stakeholders, including civil society organisations, investors, and regulators. In July 2023, JBS reignited its push for a U.S. listing, which was met with immediate pushback. A coalition of twenty civil society organizations across the European Union, Brazil, and the United States issued a briefing to over 2,000 investors, cautioning them about the financial and ethical risks of supporting a company with a long history of environmental violations and unethical business practices. By June 2024, JBS had refiled an updated application with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), prompting renewed scrutiny from both investors and regulatory bodies. The company’s controversial activities include deforestation, land grabs from indigenous communities, and misleading environmental claims.
The pressure on JBS intensified in January 2024, when a bipartisan group of fifteen U.S. senators wrote to the SEC, urging the agency to scrutinise the company’s history of corruption and environmental violations. Simultaneously, investors managing over $22 billion called on the SEC to block JBS’s listing, citing risks related to climate change, legal liabilities, and governance failures. JBS’s outstanding legal liabilities have almost doubled, rising from $1.7 billion in July 2023 to $3.6 billion by late 2024, further compounding concerns about the company’s future viability as a publicly traded entity.
Misleading Sustainability Claims and Legal Risks
In addition to mounting regulatory concerns, JBS’s claims of environmental responsibility have come under fire. The company’s much-hyped commitment to achieving ‘net zero’ emissions by 2040 has been widely criticised and debunked. In 2024, New York’s Attorney General Letitia James, filed a lawsuit against JBS USA, accusing the company of misleading consumers about its environmental impact. The lawsuit alleges that JBS engaged in greenwashing by falsely claiming it would achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, despite plans to increase beef production, which would only expand the company’s carbon footprint. Moreover, JBS’s failure to address key sources of its emissions, such as deforestation in the Amazon, has led to increasing scrutiny from advertising watchdogs. The company has been accused of making unsubstantiated sustainability claims that do not align with its actual business activities, further damaging its reputation. Some of JBS’s filings with the SEC are cited in this lawsuit as evidence of JBS’s knowledge that consumers care about sustainability. After a January 2025 hearing, the Attorney General was granted leave to file a new complaint in the case, which is still expected.
Expanding Liability Beyond Direct Polluters
One emerging legal concept gaining traction is that of ‘facilitated emissions’ – emissions that are enabled, financed, or legally supported by third parties. This concept has been gaining attention, especially within the context of financial institutions, as evidenced by Milieudefensie’s case against Dutch bank ING. However, the implications of facilitated emissions extend far beyond the financial sector. Law firms, as integral parts of corporate structures, play a critical role in enabling the operations of carbon-intensive industries, facilitating corporate restructuring, and helping these industries avoid regulatory scrutiny. As facilitated emissions gain legal recognition, law firms may increasingly find themselves under the spotlight for their role in enabling practices that contribute to climate harm.
Just as law firms are prohibited from representing clients involved in human rights abuses or corruption, similar ethical and regulatory standards may emerge with regard to supporting companies engaged in environmentally destructive practices. This evolving framework could place legal professionals at the centre of discussions about corporate accountability, particularly in the context of climate litigation. As the climate litigation landscape continues to expand, facilitated emissions could become a central focus for holding not only polluting corporations but also their legal enablers accountable.
Comments