AIQ: Cleaning up capitalism

Law and climate

Using the legal stick to accelerate change

Energy majors, cement producers, utilities and financial services providers are among the latest targets of legal action designed to make them move faster towards a lower carbon world. Could this be an inflection point, as the conversation turns to specific responsibilities rather than vague commitments to change?

Achieving net zero stands prominently in Royal Dutch Shell’s corporate strategy, just behind its commitment to shareholders. The oil major has already agreed to reduce the carbon intensity of the energy it sells and aims to become a net-zero emissions business by 2050. Shell says its ambitions are “in step with society’s progress”1 towards a lower carbon world. But is this enough?

In a game-changing development, the company was on May 26, 2021 ordered by a judge in the Hague to cut scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 45 per cent from 2019 levels by the end of the decade. This captures operational emissions as well as emissions generated from the fuel sold by Shell on the forecourt. 

“This is very significant,” explains Tom Tayler, senior manager at Aviva Investors’ Sustainable Finance Centre for Excellence. “Previously, climate litigation led to countries having emissions targets imposed by the courts, most notably in the Netherlands, but it is the first time a company has been ordered to cut emissions by the courts.”

The judgement2 was based around the concept of civil wrongs established in the Dutch Civil Code. It makes it unlawful for an entity to act in conflict with a generally accepted standard of care. Shell, and others, must act to prevent harm and in a way consistent with what society expects. [Detailed analysis of the judgement can be found here.]

“The judge combined bold assumptions about what society believes about climate change, what society believes about human rights and what society expects of businesses; in doing so, she really moved the debate forward,” Tayler says.

“One of the most staggering things she said related to how much the emissions reductions might curb Shell’s growth. She accepted the 45 per cent reduction might be costly from a commercial perspective, but the need to reduce emissions trumped that. This is an incredibly important conclusion and one others will be sure to want to use as a precedent in future actions.”

While Shell will appeal, comments from its CEO Ben van Beurden suggest the climate message has landed. “We will seek ways to reduce emissions even further in a way that remains purposeful and profitable,” he said in an interview in June. “That is likely to mean taking some bold but measured steps over the coming years."3

While legal manoeuvres may continue for months, the judgement is seen as a major step forward by environmental campaigners. The man behind the case was high-profile environmental lawyer Roger Cox, author of Revolution justified: Why only the law can save us now.4

In representing Milieudefensie (the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth) against Shell, Cox argued Shell was “on a collision course” with the climate target set out by the international scientific community and numerous governments. To meet the Paris Agreement, where the goal is to limit global temperature increases to below two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average, and ideally to 1.5 degrees, Shell has been told to do more.

Testing the law as a governance tool

Meanwhile, the volume of climate-related litigation around the world is stepping up. Since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, a large body of climate legislation has been developed (see maps in Figures 6 and 7), with assorted stakeholders and pressure groups prepared to test it.

Cases have almost doubled from 884 to 1550 since 2017.5 Most litigation (79 per cent) has been in the US; just 10 per cent has been directed at corporates. The majority of the 135 businesses facing challenges are energy and natural resources companies, with litigation concentrated in six areas: the rights to life and a clean environment, the need to keep carbon in the ground, areas of corporate responsibility, enforcement of climate targets, adaptation impacts and climate disclosures. The last category includes a growing number of financial markets cases, focusing on financial risks, fiduciary duty and corporate due diligence, affecting banks, pension funds and asset managers.6

Figure 1: Direct and indirect cases involving the private sector7
Direct and indirect cases involving the private sector
Source: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, July 2021

At this stage, the financial consequences are unclear. “Our understanding of the potential costs arising from climate change litigation is very poor,” wrote Javier Solana, a lecturer at University of Glasgow’s School of Law, in an academic paper last year.8 “Contrary to popular understanding, not all direct costs will arise at the end of legal proceedings.” Ultimately, total costs may be much higher than headline fines or court orders, particularly if litigation results in negative publicity and long-lasting reputational damage.

The younger generation wants to see more action; they are taking this much more seriously

The action is testing the role of the judiciary and reflects important social questions around values and expectations. “There is a definite generational shift underway,” says Paul Pritchard from sustainability consultant Iken Associates. “People have been talking about climate for 25 years, but it is only recently that views have started to crystalise. The younger generation wants to see more action; they are taking this much more seriously,” Pritchard says.

For Tayler, the nature of the language being used by the courts to support calls for fairer treatment and intergenerational fairness is worth noting. In Australia, for example, a recent judgement suggested failure by the environment minister to take climate action on coal could wreak “devastation” on children, forming part of part of “the greatest intergenerational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of human upon the next”.9 Germany’s Constitutional Court has also deemed the 2019 Climate Change Act unconstitutional for placing too much of the decarbonisation burden after 2030. It declared that one generation could not be given the right to consume a large share of the CO2 budget if it left radical reductions to others and exposed them to “comprehensive losses of freedom."10

Pritchard believes the underlying value shift will become increasingly apparent in consumer action: “They will reflect their values and choices in their behaviour, where they work, where they invest their money and so on.”

Figure 2: Climate-related litigation: Total cases 1986-201911
Climate-related litigation: Total cases 1986-2019
Note: Each dot represents one case.
Source: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, December 2019
Figure 3: Climate-related litigation: Cases against companies 1986-201912
Climate-related litigation: Cases against companies 1986-2019
Source: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, December 2019

So, how do experts view Cox’s latest crowdfunded challenge? “The Shell case in the Netherlands is important, because it addresses whether Shell is going to deliver on its targets. Those that brought the case said: ‘It does not look as if you are going to do that’ and are really calling on Shell to change its core business model,” says Joana Setzer, assistant professorial research fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. (Read a detailed interview with Setzer here.)

The key analytical tool that might prove pertinent is climate attribution. This rapidly evolving science allows human impacts on climate change to be assessed (within certain data constraints), right down to the individual company level. By taking a pre-industrial climate scenario, then comparing it with one that takes man-made emissions into account, it may be possible to define the human contribution in a particular scenario.

These developments are significant because until recently it was not possible to be definitive about causative relationships: to establish that a single company’s actions might have contributed to a particular weather event.

“Because of the causation issues, quantifying damages for acceleration of climate change may be difficult,” noted law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.13 The evolution of climate attribution has gripped the legal profession; a judge hearing a case in the US is reported to have asked for a relevant ‘teach-in’, to help him prepare.14

“This is where the work of Dr. Friedereike Otto, Richard Heede and others has made a real difference,” Setzer says. (More from Otto here). “They have developed attribution science, but they are also producing science that is useful for courts. We had science produced prior to that, but lawyers couldn’t readily use it. Now the lawyers and scientists are talking, the scientists are producing information that is purposeful and this is already making a difference.”

One important consideration in legal action is whether greenhouse gas emitters can be shown to have known about environmental risks but pressed ahead with harmful activities regardless. If evidence like this coexists with information from an internationally recognised body like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, companies may find it harder to have the cases against them dismissed.

“The ruling against Shell is game changing,” says Sora Utzinger, senior environmental, social and governance (ESG) analyst at Aviva Investors. “Prior to now, most of the behaviour change related to climate has come about from top-down regulation. More governments have announced plans to reach net zero, and companies have changed their behaviour accordingly, to reflect what society wants to achieve. This is different; it makes company commitments binding.”

Meanwhile, environmental consultants warn of oversimplifying the analysis, making it all about the few. “One concern I have is about the need for quite a simple narrative, about good guys and bad guys,” says Pritchard. “It is not particularly helpful to demonise a small group of companies. The oil majors are not the only ones involved here.

“They might be supplying a product, but lots of others are using it, and perhaps those individuals could be doing more to look for alternatives themselves,” he adds. “I hope the discussion becomes broader. There are companies that need to be held to account, but hopefully that does not lead to the conclusion that only a handful are the problem. It is much bigger and more complex than that. We need to be asking more questions, like who burns the gas and puts the aviation fuel in the planes?”

Facing up to responsibility for the global commons

Meanwhile, in Germany, another climate case is being played out. A small-scale Peruvian farmer, Saul Luciano Lliuya, is taking on the German utility RWE, backed by the sustainable development organisation Germanwatch.15

German regulations require an end to coal-fired energy generation by 2038

RWE is one of Europe’s largest carbon dioxide emitters, giving out around 100 million tonnes of CO2 annually from fossil-fuel fired power stations and other assets. It has plans to phase out coal and be carbon neutral by 2040.

“German regulations require an end to coal-fired energy generation by 2038,” says Utzinger. “RWE plans to use one of the dirtier fuels right up to that regulatory deadline. Other European peers seem to be moving faster in the energy transition, although generally they are all ahead of their equivalents in the US.”

Lliuya lives in the Andes, about 280 miles north of Lima, where rising temperatures have led a glacier to retreat. The melting ice is feeding a glacial lake, which threatens to burst. If it does, it will affect Lliuya and the lives of thousands of other local residents.

“This is the first lawsuit in Europe where a person affected by the hazards of climate change has sued a private company,” Germanwatch says.16 Lliuya is seeking damages from RWE to compensate for the investment he has made to protect his home. The amount itself is not vast – less than half of one per cent of the total cost incurred by himself and the local authorities. That’s the same percentage as RWE’s estimated contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions since industrialisation began.17 If Lliuya’s legal team is ultimately successful using a ‘general nuisance’ clause in the German Civil Code, it potentially opens the floodgates to countless other claims.

Litigation like this presents both a risk and an opportunity from an ESG perspective

“Litigation like this presents both a risk and an opportunity from an ESG perspective,” says Utzinger. “Companies can differentiate themselves through the progress they make as they move towards an effective low-carbon transition. But we should not underestimate the risks. These cases could set quite wide-ranging precedents in terms of establishing a company’s liability towards society, not based on a specific locale.”

To clarify, RWE is in the dock for impacts in Peru, although it has no operations there at all.

In a story of many twists, RWE has now taken legal action against the Netherlands in a Є1.4 billion corporate/state dispute. It is looking to offset the cost of retiring a coal-fired power station early;18 that decision came about after Cox’s successful case against the Dutch government. RWE is the subject of climate litigation and also using it.

The complex web linking social values and risk

So, what does this imply? “We see the right to environment emerging globally,” says Laura Burgers from the Amsterdam Centre for Transformative Private Law at the University of Amsterdam.19 “We see the environment as a foundation of society, as a part, a necessary condition, of constitutional democracy, as a condition to be able to exercise the other rights you have.”

Many defendants in climate cases point out they are not responsible, but it is rather a global responsibility

Because environmental issues transcend national boundaries, there is an obvious governance challenge. “It is interesting that many defendants in climate cases point out they are not responsible, but it is rather a global responsibility,” she says. “And they are right – climate change is a global issue that can only be addressed effectively if everyone is on board. At the same time, it means we all should actually be on board!”

The analytical framework that has developed to encapsulate the changing environment involves an intricate web of physical, transition and litigation risk. “As physical risks become larger, so does the litigation risk,” Setzer says. “But transition risks also increase litigation risk. This is why it is important for private actors to track cases against states, not just cases against companies they invest in or insure.”

Important implications flow from this. Recent analysis by the UN Environment Programme points to six key areas where litigation may step up, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Future trends in climate litigation

Migration triggers litigation in the Global South

Mass displacement from extreme climate impacts likely to disproportionately affect countries in the Global South. Anticipate growing number of cases seeking to address status of displaced people.

Consumer and investor fraud claims increase

Claims against companies for failure to disclose or inadequate disclosure are expected to increase. Greater regulatory requirements and scientific advances mean climate events are more likely to be foreseeable, leaving companies at higher risk of litigation for failure to disclose.

Pre- and post- disaster cases rise

Anticipate more cases based on alleged failure to plan or manage the consequences of extreme climate events, for example related to fires or advancing sea level.

More disputes around the implementation of adaptation measures

Ways in which changes are implemented (or not) are likely to be the source of future litigation.

Greater attention on climate attribution

Few climate-litigation cases have reached evidentiary stage, where courts have scrutinised whether alleged loss or injury is directly caused by climate change and the defendants’ contribution to it. The science of climate change is becoming more robust. Attribution of responsibility is central to climate litigation; expect climate attribution to receive more attention.

Increased use of international adjudicatory bodies

Judgements may be sought from international adjudicatory bodies rather than domestic regimes which may not be effective at holding governments to account. Opinions from international bodies may not be enforceable, but they can influence how judges and other stakeholders view the law.

Source: UNEP Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, January 2021

Where might these various risks present? What mechanisms might be lightning rods for risk transmission?

No clear answers emerge. A high-profile case could prove a tipping point, but Pritchard believes a more likely outcome is that litigation will “pick up laggards, rather than drive change fundamentally”. Perhaps controversially, he suggests attention is being directed at climate risk “because it has universal metrics; it can be measured in terms of greenhouse gases”.

In his view, other nature impacts connected with climate change, such as biodiversity loss, need attention too. “In some ways, a focus on nature-related impacts rather than greenhouse gases might afford an easier route to litigation, not least through geographic dependencies that allow cause-effect pathways to be constructed,” he says.

If carbon-heavy businesses accelerate towards transition, will their return on capital fall?

There is plenty of stakeholder tension to contemplate as well. If carbon-heavy businesses accelerate towards transition, will their return on capital fall? Could that leave emitters open to criticism from climate change activists as well as disgruntled shareholders, with risk on both counts?

“They are, in a sense, damned if they do and damned if they don’t,”20 as law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer puts it.

“Climate transition risks are being taken much more seriously by the oil majors,” Utzinger says. “They are factoring them into the capital budgeting process, resulting in a higher cost of capital. Those on the path to net zero know they have to de-risk their traditional upstream business; that’s why they talk about ‘advantaged resources’, where there is a sweet spot between low breakeven prices and lower emissions intensity.

“Of course, returns on invested capital (ROIC) vary across hydrocarbon and low-carbon energy sources,” she adds. “We think companies should not just focus on ROIC but on the underlying risk profile – ultimately knowing where to play and understanding where established capabilities can create value in the low-carbon space is going to be a critical component of strategy.”

Figure 5: Assessing litigation risk21
TCFD recommendation: Governance Strategy Risk management Metrics and targets
Litigation risk role: Incorporation of climate-related litigation risk into the governance of an organisation, including in relation to the senior management and directors' responsibilities. Consideration of climate-related litigation risk when defining the sustainability and overall business strategy for ensuring a robust and forward-looking business model. Incorporation of climate-related litigation risk into the risk management function, including identification, assessment, mitigation, monitoring and reporting. Definition of metrics and targets for climate-related litigation risk management.
Source: UNEP, January 2021

All this suggests an environment that requires thoughtful handling, particularly as there is little consistency with carbon disclosures yet. Ultimately, best practise means companies that could be targets of climate action need to inform their shareholders, build provisions, and ensure material risks are reported. In the background, they need to recognise the potential to be challenged in jurisdictions in which they do not operate.

Institutional investors need to think carefully about their duties to clients

Institutional investors also need to think carefully about their duties to clients, how their risk exposures are being presented and their ability to verify any claims being made about environmental credentials. Cases to bear in mind include McVeigh vs. REST, where a 25-year-old member of an Australian pension scheme won a case after suggesting the scheme was not doing enough to protect his savings.22 Ultimately, the scheme agreed climate change implied a “material, direct and current financial risk”, to align its portfolio to net zero by 2050, and report using the guidelines agreed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

Insurers also need to prepare for detailed scenario analyses with forensic scrutiny of underwriting decisions and the assets they hold, to help mitigate the uncertainty. 

These changes reflect the complex way the environment is changing, how environmental protest has become global and how climate action is part of an evolving social debate.  

“Litigation is being used in every direction, and we are going to see more of it,” Setzer warns. “The terrain becomes complex, risks and uncertainty are high, and the players involved are powerful. It will be a hard fight.”

The law as a governance tool

Figure 6: Climate laws and policies and greenhouse gas emissions23

Climate laws and policies and greenhouse gas emissions

Note: The size of the circle represents the number of climate laws and policies. The larger the circle, the higher the number of climate laws and policies. The colour of the circle represents the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuel and the manufacture of cement, land-use change, and forestry. The darker the circle, the higher the emissions.
Source: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, March 2021

Figure 7: Climate litigation and greenhouse gas emissions24

Climate litigation and greenhouse gas emissions

Note: The size of the circle represents the number of climate lawsuits. The larger the circle, the higher the number of climate lawsuits. The colour of the circle represents the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions from the use of fossil fuel and the manufacture of cement, land-use change, and forestry. The darker the circle, the higher the emissions.
Source: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, March 2021

References

  1. ‘Shell accelerates drive for net zero emissions with customer first strategy’, Shell, February 11, 2021
  2. ‘Uitsprakende: ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339’, de Rechtspraak, May 26, 2021
  3. Ron Bousso, ‘Shell to step up energy transition after landmark court ruling’, Reuters, June 9, 2021
  4. Roger H.J. Cox, ‘Revolution justified: Why only the law can save us now’, Stichting Planet Prosperity, September 19, 2015
  5. ‘Research article: Global climate litigation report: 2020 status review’, United Nations Environment Programme, January 26, 2021
  6. ‘Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, ‘Global trends in climate change litigation: 2021 snapshot’, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2021
  7. ‘Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, ‘Global trends in climate change litigation: 2021 snapshot’, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, July 2021
  8. Javier Solana, ‘Climate change litigation as financial risk’, AIMS Green Finance, October 28, 2020
  9. ‘Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment’, Federal Court of Australia 560, 2021
  10. Kate Connolly, ‘‘Historic’ German ruling says climate goals not tough enough’, The Guardian, April 29, 2021
  11. ‘Climate-related litigation. By numbers’, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, December 2019
  12. ‘Climate-related litigation. By numbers’, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, December 2019
  13. Elisa de Wit, Holly Stebbing, Sonali Seneviratne and Daniel Wells, ‘UN report on climate litigation released’, Norton Rose Fulbright, March 2021
  14. ‘A new front in the fight against climate change’, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 2021
  15. ‘Peruvian farmer takes on German energy giant RWE’, DW News, December 6, 2019
  16. Stefan Küper, ‘Historic breakthrough with global impact in "climate lawsuit"’, Germanwatch, November 30, 2017
  17. Stefan Küper, ‘Historic breakthrough with global impact in "climate lawsuit"’, Germanwatch, November 30, 2017
  18. ‘RWE seeks compensation for Dutch plans to shut coal-fired plant’, Reuters, February 4, 2021
  19. ‘Climate litigation — addressing fundamental rights…for having a future’, European Court of Auditors, September 11, 2020
  20. ‘A new front in the fight against climate change’, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, 2021
  21. ‘Insuring the climate transition: Enhancing the insurance industry’s assessment of climate change futures’, UNEP, January 2021
  22. Swati Pandey, ‘Australian pension fund settles landmark climate lawsuit’, Reuters, November 2, 2020
  23. ‘Climate change laws of the world’, Grantham Institute of Climate Change & the Environment, March 2021
  24. ‘Climate change laws of the world’, Grantham Institute of Climate Change & the Environment, March 2021

Would you like to read the whole of AIQ: Cleaning up capitalism?

Subscribe to download a PDF copy or get a printed edition delivered directly to you.

Thank you for requesting a copy of our latest AIQ. We will send this to you shortly.

To keep up-to-date with our latest insights, please visit our main views page.

Please enable javascript in your browser in order to see this content.

Please select the format you wish to receive.

If you wish to receive a printed copy of AIQ, please enter your full postal address below.

I acknowledge that I qualify as a professional client or institutional/qualified investor. By submitting these details, I confirm that I would like to receive a digital and/or printed copy of the latest AIQ and receive thought leadership email updates from Aviva Investors, in addition to any other email subscription I may have with Aviva Investors. You can unsubscribe or tailor your email preferences at any time.

For more information, please visit our Privacy Policy.

View full edition online

AIQ: Cleaning Up Capitalism

To tackle the climate crisis, economies and markets need a systems reboot. In AIQ: Cleaning Up Capitalism, we examine what it will take to get us back on track to achieve net zero; from transforming the financial system and accounting, to decarbonising heavy industries and ensuring polluters pay.

Find out more
AIQ: Cleaning up capitalism

Important information

Except where stated as otherwise, the source of all information is Aviva Investors Global Services Limited (AIGSL). Unless stated otherwise any views and opinions are those of Aviva Investors. They should not be viewed as indicating any guarantee of return from an investment managed by Aviva Investors nor as advice of any nature. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but has not been independently verified by Aviva Investors and is not guaranteed to be accurate. Past performance is not a guide to the future. The value of an investment and any income from it may go down as well as up and the investor may not get back the original amount invested. Nothing in this material, including any references to specific securities, assets classes and financial markets is intended to or should be construed as advice or recommendations of any nature. Some data shown are hypothetical or projected and may not come to pass as stated due to changes in market conditions and are not guarantees of future outcomes. This material is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment.

In Europe this document is issued by Aviva Investors Luxembourg S.A. Registered Office: 2 rue du Fort Bourbon, 1st Floor, 1249 Luxembourg. Supervised by Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier. An Aviva company. In the UK Issued by Aviva Investors Global Services Limited. Registered in England No. 1151805.  Registered Office: St Helens, 1 Undershaft, London EC3P 3DQ.  Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm Reference No. 119178.

In Singapore, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Asia Pte. Limited (AIAPL) for distribution to institutional investors only. Please note that AIAPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIAPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material.  AIAPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore with registration number 200813519W, holds a valid Capital Markets Services Licence to carry out fund management activities issued under the Securities and Futures Act (Singapore Statute Cap. 289) and Asian Exempt Financial Adviser for the purposes of the Financial Advisers Act (Singapore Statute Cap.110). Registered Office: 1Raffles Quay, #27-13 South Tower, Singapore 048583. In Australia, this material is being circulated by way of an arrangement with Aviva Investors Pacific Pty Ltd (AIPPL) for distribution to wholesale investors only. Please note that AIPPL does not provide any independent research or analysis in the substance or preparation of this material. Recipients of this material are to contact AIPPL in respect of any matters arising from, or in connection with, this material. AIPPL, a company incorporated under the laws of Australia with Australian Business No. 87 153 200 278 and Australian Company No. 153 200 278, holds an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 411458) issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Business Address: Level 30, Collins Place, 35 Collins Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000, Australia.

The name “Aviva Investors” as used in this material refers to the global organization of affiliated asset management businesses operating under the Aviva Investors name. Each Aviva investors’ affiliate is a subsidiary of Aviva plc, a publicly- traded multi-national financial services company headquartered in the United Kingdom. Aviva Investors Canada, Inc. (“AIC”) is located in Toronto and is registered with the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) as a Portfolio Manager, an Exempt Market Dealer, and a Commodity Trading Manager. Aviva Investors Americas LLC is a federally registered investment advisor with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Aviva Investors Americas is also a commodity trading advisor (“CTA”) registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and is a member of the National Futures Association (“NFA”).  AIA’s Form ADV Part 2A, which provides background information about the firm and its business practices, is available upon written request to: Compliance Department, 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2250, Chicago, IL 60606.

Related views