This was the largest
climate-change-related
case ever brought against
a major energy company
in the U.S..
On Oct. 30, former Exxon
CEO Rex Tillerson
took the stand and alleged
that the case was politically
motivated, and that the
AG's office was deliberately
misleading Exxon Mobil's
intentions.
It was brought by
New York State's
Attorney Generals,
Barbara Underwood,
and her successor,
Letitia James
(current New York State AG).
Democrats were hoping
to punish one of the
world's largest
energy companies
for suppressing and
misconstruing research
about the environmental
impact of fossil fuels,
as if anyone would know.
The case was filed
in October 2018
after four years
of investigation.
The lawsuit alleged Exxon Mobil
was responsible for $1.6 billion
in investor losses by lying
to them about the impact of
future climate change
regulation on its business.
The AG's office thought
it had evidence that the
company had crossed
a legal line by distributing
one set of numbers,
while using another
"more conservative"
set of forecasts internally.
Perhaps unknown to the AG,
corporate finance departments
USUALLY develop a range
of internal-only projections
-- It's a very common practice.
One alternative will eventually
be chosen for financial statements.
The "cost" of climate change
for Exxon would actually
be impossible for anyone
to estimate.
During their
closing statement,
the AG dropped the two
most damning of four
charges without explanation
- they were the charges
claiming that Exxon’s
misstatements were part
of a deliberate scheme
to mislead investors,
and that the data were
critical to investors'
decision-making when
deciding whether to buy
ExxonMobil stock.
A Manhattan judge
handed down the ruling.
After those two charges
were dropped,
New York Supreme Court
Justice Barry Ostrager,
was left to decide whether
Exxon had violated New York
State’s Martin Act,
by issuing misleading
statements to investors.
The judge said no !
"The office of
the Attorney General
failed to prove,
by a preponderance
of the evidence,
that ExxonMobil made
any material misstatements
or omissions about its practices
and procedures that misled
any reasonable investor,"
Judge Ostrager wrote
in a 55-page ruling.
(Letitia James)
"produced
no testimony
... from any investor
who claimed to have been
misled by any disclosure."