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 / Liability Litigation / Learning From NY, Mass. Adjusts Fraud Case Vs. Exxon
Learning From NY, Mass. Adjusts Fraud Case Vs. Exxon

Learning From NY, Mass. Adjusts Fraud Case Vs. Exxon

June 12, 2020 Filed Under: Liability Litigation, Mass. v. Exxon

print

By Karen Savage

ExxonMobil’s method for calculating the risks posed to its business by climate change have been  “inconsistent and haphazard and did not identify any meaningful impact from potential climate regulation,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office said in an amended complaint filed earlier this month in her fraud lawsuit against the company.

The AG’s amended complaint addresses several developments since the case was filed last year, most notably reacting to weaknesses in New York’s similar lawsuit against Exxon, which the company won last year. 

The Massachusetts AG’s office filed its suit against Exxon before that verdict was handed down in November, alleging the company has known for decades that its products cause climate change, but misled consumers and investors about that risk.

After a nearly 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 disclosed to investors—when calculating future climate risk. A proxy cost of carbon is a number representing the estimated future cost of climate regulation.

The Mass. AG’s initial filing included a similar claim, alleging that Exxon deceived Massachusetts investors by making “false and misleading statements to Massachusetts investors regarding its use of a proxy cost of carbon.”

That claim, one of two related to investor deception, has been dropped from Massachusetts’ complaint and allegations related to Exxon’s use of the proxy cost of carbon have been consolidated to fall under the claim that the company “misrepresented and failed to disclose material facts regarding climate change risks.”

That doesn’t mean Exxon, which has consistently denied it misled the public about climate change, is off the hook for its potentially deceptive use of a proxy cost of carbon to evaluate future climate risk, or that the case won’t delve further into the issue. 

“Over the last decade, ExxonMobil assured its Massachusetts and other investors that it had accounted for such risk by building into its business planning what is known as a ‘proxy cost’ of carbon,” the AG’s office wrote in the amended complaint.

“Through recent disclosures in litigation in New York state court, including trial testimony by current and former company managers and executives, it has become apparent that ExxonMobil’s repeated assurances to investors in this regard were—as with its misrepresentations about climate change risks more broadly—highly misleading.”

The oil giant is also still facing claims that it deceived consumers by promoting a false and misleading greenwashing campaign and that it “misled and continues to mislead Massachusetts consumers by representing that their use of ExxonMobil’s Synergy™ fuels and “green” Mobil 1™ motor oil products will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

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: Liability Litigation, Mass. v. Exxon

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. Learning From NY, Mass. Adjusts Fraud Case Vs. Exxon – Climate Change Resources says:
    June 13, 2020 at 6:55 am

    […] post Learning From NY, Mass. Adjusts Fraud Case Vs. Exxon appeared first on The Climate […]

  2. Texas Court Refuses to Let Exxon Depose California Officials in Climate Cases - The Climate Docket says:
    June 19, 2020 at 4:13 pm

    […] failed to prove its allegations. A suit filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is proceeding in state […]

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

    […] was unsuccessful. A suit filed by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office against Exxon for deceiving consumers is proceeding in state […]

  4. DC Files Latest Climate Suit Vs. Big Oil - The Climate Docket says:
    June 25, 2020 at 2:16 pm

    […] 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 […]

  5. Poll: Support for Climate Suits Crosses Party Lines - The Climate Docket says:
    July 14, 2020 at 5:51 pm

    […] change-related lawsuits have also been filed by the attorneys general in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, as well as by nearly two dozen municipalities across the country. All are seeking […]

  6. New Jersey Lawmakers Push State to Sue Fossil Fuel Industry for Climate Costs - The Climate Docket says:
    July 20, 2020 at 6:45 pm

    […] seeing the damage,” Tittel said. “The state of New Jersey should join with Rhode Island and Massachusetts and other states and cities to hold them accountable, and to make the polluters pay otherwise […]

  7. Exxon Says Calif. Climate Suits Are a Conspiracy, Asks Texas Court to Allow Discovery - The Climate Docket says:
    October 7, 2020 at 5:11 pm

    […] failed to prove its allegations. A suit filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is proceeding in state […]

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

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Exxon Continues to Fund 'Science' Group Steeped in Climate Denial and Delay
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion
  • Climate Activists Win Necessity Defense Case in London
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime

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.