Exxon found not guilty in New York climate-change securities fraud trial, ending 4-year saga

[Eugene]

Source: CNBC

New York’s Attorney General failed to prove that Exxon mislead shareholders over the true cost of climate change, a judge ruled Tuesday, ending the oil giant’s multiyear battle against the state.

“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 Barry Ostrager of the trial-level state Supreme Court wrote in his ruling.

“The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses,” he added.

The $1.6 billion lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general’s office alleged that Exxon deceived investors about the true cost of climate change. The trial, which began in October and was the first climate fraud lawsuit to go to trial, was the result of a four-year investigation.

-snip-

PUBLISHED TUE, DEC 10 2019 10:30 AM EST UPDATED 6 HOURS AGO
Pippa Stevens
@PIPPASTEVENS13


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/exxon-did-not-mislead-investors-a-new-york-judge-ruled-on-tuesday.html

[AllaN01Bear]

1. wonder who exon bought out.

[Mersky]

2. Why didn't they call witnesses?

From Judge Ostrager’s ruling mentioned in the article:

The office of the Attorney General produced no testimony from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure, even though the Office of the Attorney General had previously represented it would call such individuals as trial witnesses, he added.

What happened to the witnesses? Why didn’t they testify?

I can hardly believe the state’s AG would bring a case without investor witnesses. And this was ruling was with prejudice? Can’t bring the same case again?!

[JudyM]

3. Puzzling lack of offering up a necessary element of the case.

[dware]

4. Maybe the State AG was bluffing hoping that

Exxon would cave and settle out of court?

If that was the case, then the AG badly miscalculated.

[Jose Garcia]

5. It was a political stunt

When the AG runs for higher office (Governor, Senator), she can crow about how she already has a track record of taking on Big Oil.

[dware]

6. And losing?

Not exactly a record I would want if I were running for higher office.

[Jose Garcia]

8. Her campaign ads will omit that part

[dware]

9. No doubt. nt

[Mersky]

10. Maybe? I need to know more.

I'll put your charge in the bucket of possibilities. Will likely revisit this court decision over the next days as more reporting surfaces.

Big Oil, Exxon, deserves a day in court actually defending it's legacy of supporting climate denial, leaded gasoline, resource wars, etc. I think there are real cases to bring.

Did the AG bring a hollow case or did it become hollowed out?

[robbob]

7. Not sure I understand the point of the lawsuit?

People who are investing money in Exxon (especially the 1%’ers) are NOT the ones who will be suffering the cost of climate change. How would putting more money in shareholders pockets benefit the planet, or those who will suffer from these cataclysmic changes?

[Mersky]

11. NY has, eh, standing to bring securities fraud charges

For investments on the NYSE, headquarters and offices in Manhattan.

Otherwise, imo, it comes down to documented money investment placed on the word of Exxon. Is a way to show direct monetary harm/damages for pushing false information to investors.

An over-the-top, hypothetical example of the physical effects of a climate change type case to bring is if a big oil concern built a dummy refining facility too close to the rising tidal waters as a show of confidence that climate change isn't happening, while simultaneously building the real plant on higher ground. If everyday people built houses and communities close to the dummy plant with intent to live and work there for 30+ years, but internally, the big oil co. knew it would only operate for seven years before shifting to the other plant, then those who built their lives close to the temporary plant might have a case. Let me again state, this example is hypothetical - to the point of being a nearly cartoonishly perfect case.