My work and travel schedules this spring have led to a decrease in my substantive (and other) blogging of late. (I am reminded of a blog post I wrote years ago on a similarly busy travel summer, with a follow-up post here ) I hope to slowly catch up in the coming weeks. This week, I am in Prague and Budapest, the latter for an international remedies forum at which I will share some work emanating out of my ongoing research on blockchain fraud. More on that another time . . . .

Today, however, I want to follow up on my blog post from last May on ESG Greenwashing. The article I referenced in that post was recently published. Entitled ESG and Insider Trading: Legal and Practical Considerations, the SSRN abstract is set forth below.

This Article preliminarily explores the contours of ESG information as a potential basis for unlawful insider trading under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under Section 10(b). Insider trading violations under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are rooted in a person’s (1) trading of securities while in possession of material nonpublic information or (2) tipping another with material nonpublic information. ESG information has the capacity to be both material and nonpublic. ESG information, like other significant information, may be at the heart of insider trading and related enforcement activity if trading or tipping is effected with the requisite knowing state of mind.

The Article anticipates and prognosticates on this enforcement activity, investigating core legal questions and offering related analyses and observations. The reflections offered may be useful to those who may possess ESG information and desire to trade or tip (and their advisors); policymakers in the U.S. Congress and at the SEC; enforcement agents in the U.S. Department of Justice and at the SEC; the judiciary; and business firms (and their advisors). For example, prospective and actual securities traders and tippers may gain awareness of the liability-generating capacity of ESG information in an insider trading context. Moreover, the Article may support government and regulatory officials and judges in efficient and effective rulemaking, enforcement activities, and adjudication of related cases and controversies. Takeaways for business firms may include, for example, wisdom about best practices for the retention of material nonpublic ESG information and refining the contents of insider trading compliance plans.

I had some fun writing this to honor our fabulous colleague Jill Fisch. Her work, of course, spans both topics at the core of my article–environmental, social, and governance issues and insider trading. I have enjoyed and cited to her work in both areas over the years.

This article follows on my earlier piece on ESG information and materiality doctrine, which I blogged about last summer. I had some interesting conversations about that work last week at the 2025 Annual Conference on Legal Issues in Social Entrepreneurship and Impact Investing—In the US and Beyond, hosted at NYU Law by the Grunin Center for Law and Social Entrepreneurship and the Impact Investing Legal Working Group. Folks from outside the United States also are looking at issues relating to the materiality of ESG information and impacts and want to understand more about materiality doctrine here in the United States.

The next piece in that line of my scholarship is on the effect of ESG information on compliance programs, plans, and policies. If any of you are working in that space, please let me know. I already know that Diane Lourdes Dick and Joe Yockey are working on a piece of interest on the governance of toxic data. (They presented it at the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting in Chicago last month. Joe’s LinkedIn post on their work can be found here.) But I remain interested in knowing if others have recent or ongoing research to which I can cite.