The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Exxon Climate Investigation / Exxon Found Not Guilty of Deceiving Investors Over Climate Risks
Exxon Found Not Guilty of Deceiving Investors Over Climate Risks

Exxon Found Not Guilty of Deceiving Investors Over Climate Risks

December 10, 2019 Filed Under: Exxon Climate Investigation

print

By Karen Savage

The New York attorney general did not prove that Exxon defrauded investors or misled them about climate risks to its business, New York Supreme Court Judge Barry Ostrager ruled on Tuesday.

Ostrager’s ruling, is the culmination of a suit that began more than three years ago, when then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman began an investigation into Exxon’s climate change accounting and its communication with investors.

Ostrager dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning the AG cannot file the same claims again. The AG’s office has not yet said whether it will seek an appeal to the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court.

“Today’s ruling affirms the position ExxonMobil has held throughout the New York attorney general’s baseless investigation,” Exxon spokesperson Casey Norton said in a statement. “We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change. 

“The court agreed that the Attorney General failed to make a case, even with the extremely low threshold of the Martin Act in its favor.” Norton said.

Based on evidence gathered during the lengthy and contentious investigation, the AG’s office filed suit against Exxon last year, alleging that the oil giant violated the Martin Act by failing to disclose it used two different sets of numbers to assess climate risk, one for shareholders and the other for its own internal calculations.

The AG originally charged Exxon with four fraud-related claims, but dropped the charges of equitable fraud and common law fraud as the trial concluded earlier this month.

Over the course of a nearly three week trial, the court heard testimony by Exxon employees, accountants, auditors and experts, and saw documents offering a glimpse into Exxon’s inner workings. In a scathing decision, Ostrager ruled that the AG failed to prove that Exxon’s disclosures misled investors.

“Perhaps, the 2014 paragraph in Managing the Risks which indicated that ExxonMobil applied a GHG cost ‘where appropriate’ and which was the subject of questioning of virtually every witness in the case could have been written in bold type, but the sentence was consistent with other ExxonMobil disclosures and ExxonMobil’s business practices,” Ostrager wrote, adding that the report had no market impact and was “essentially ignored by the investment community.”

While the AG focused on the conflation of certain terms by Exxon employees, Ostrager said it was “hardly surprising that internal documents from the different groups do not use identical terminology” because employees worked in different groups within the company.

Ostrager reserved his harshest words for the AG’s expert witnesses, which he said were “eviscerated on cross-examination and by ExxonMobil’s expert witnesses.” One didn’t understand the way some of Exxon’s internal models worked, Ostrager wrote, adding there was no evidence that the company over-valued its Alberta oil sands assets.

Testimony by 10 present and former Exxon executives and employees showed they were “uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible” and “demonstrated that EM has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting,” Ostrager said, adding that each testified that they were unaware of any scheme within the company to mislead investors about the way it manages climate change-related risk. 

“There was not a single ExxonMobil employee whose testimony the court found to be anything other than truthful,” he added. 

Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, a project of the National Association of Manufacturers that has advocated on behalf of fossil companies in climate liability suits, said it was obvious at trial that the AG’s office was trying to impose liability on ExxonMobil for its political viewpoint.

“Today’s ruling makes clear that politically-motivated investigations and legal actions against energy manufacturers over the shared global challenge of climate change have no place in the courtroom — whether they target one company or an entire industry,” Goldberg said.

“Trying to scapegoat energy manufacturers over climate change, whether here or in other lawsuits, is not going to solve climate change. New York and other governments should focus on fostering the policies and innovations required to address this challenge, not sue and undermine these efforts,” Goldberg said.

Attorney General Leticia James said it was the first time in history, ExxonMobil was compelled to answer publicly for their internal decisions that misled investors.

“As Rex Tillerson admitted at trial, all investors are entitled to the truth,” James said in a statement.

“The oil giant never took seriously the severe economic impact that climate change regulations would have on the company, contrary to what they were telling the public. Throughout this case, we laid out how Exxon made materially false, misleading, and confusing representations to the American people about the company’s response to climate change regulations. Exxon’s inability to tell the truth, further underscores the lies that have been sold to the American public for decades,” James said. 

Ostrager was careful to say his ruling was related only to the fraud charges filed by the AG.  

“Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve ExxonMobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases in the production of its fossil fuel products. ExxonMobil does not dispute either that its operations produced greenhouse gases or that greenhouse gases contribute to climate change,” Ostrager wrote.


Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Exxon Climate Investigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Shareholders demand more climate disclosure as SEC tries to restrict them says:
    January 10, 2020 at 12:07 pm

    […] general’s office and was key evidence in its climate fraud lawsuit against Exxon. The court ruled the AG did not prove that Exxon defrauded New York investors or misled them about climate risks to […]

  2. New York AG will not appeal decision clearing Exxon of climate fraud says:
    January 13, 2020 at 11:38 am

    […] step forward in efforts to hold Exxon accountable for its actions, even if Judge Barry Ostrager rejected the state’s claims that the company acted […]

  3. Learning From NY, Mass. Adjusts Fraud Case Vs. Exxon - The Climate Docket says:
    June 17, 2020 at 2:51 pm

    […] three-week trial, New York Supreme Court Judge Barry Ostrager ruled that the NY AG’s office failed to prove that Exxon deceived investors by using two proxy costs of carbon–one for internal use and one […]

  4. Minnesota Sues Fossil Fuel Industry for Climate Fraud - The Climate Docket says:
    June 24, 2020 at 3:17 pm

    […] general’s office used a strong investor fraud law to charge Exxon with fraud in 2018, but its lawsuit was unsuccessful. A suit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office against Exxon for deceiving […]

  5. DC Files Latest Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil - The Climate Docket says:
    June 25, 2020 at 12:00 pm

    […] trespass, and negligence. A handful, including suits filed in recent years by attorneys general in New York, Massachusetts, and Minnesota, have charged the companies with defrauding consumers, investors or […]

  6. Exxon Pushes for Dismissal of Texas Investor Fraud Suit - The Climate Docket says:
    August 4, 2020 at 12:16 pm

    […] it should be dismissed because it includes claims that the New York Attorney General’s office failed to prove in a separate climate fraud lawsuit against the oil […]

  7. Investors: Exxon's 'Self Investigation' Shouldn't Sink Their Lawsuit - The Climate Docket says:
    September 8, 2020 at 8:35 pm

    […] Court Judge Barry Ostrager, who in December ruled that the New York attorney general’s office failed to prove that Exxon deceived investors after a 12-day […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • Documents Detail What Shell Knew About Climate Change Decades Ago
  • France, Home of the Paris Agreement, Faces Lawsuit for Lack of Climate Progress
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Court: Climate Impacts of Pipeline Projects Cannot Be Ignored

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.