Exxon Mobil Corp. won a closely watched securities-fraud trial that delved into its internal accounting for the financial risks of climate change, a striking rejection of New York state’s claim that the company misled investors for years.
The ruling Tuesday by New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager in Manhattan is a blow to the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, who accused the energy company of lying about its use of a “proxy cost” for carbon to account for future climate-change regulations.
“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,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling. The AG “produced no testimony either from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure,” while the company disclosed its use of both the proxy cost and the greenhouse gas metrics no later than 2014, the judge said.
The attorney general’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Exxon got a hint of victory on the last day of the trial when the attorney general dropped the two most damning of four claims without explanation during his closing statement. The abandoned claims had been crucial elements of the state’s case because they held that Exxon’s misstatements were part of a scheme to mislead and that investors had relied on them when buying the company’s stock.
After the AG’s retreat, what remained for Ostrager to decide was whether Exxon had violated New York’s Martin Act by issuing public statements about proxy costs that were materially misleading — a far easier task because the law doesn’t require proof of intent or that investors actually relied on the misstatements. Even so, the state couldn’t do it.
New York initially claimed that former Exxon chief executive officer Rex Tillerson had spearheaded the scheme to dupe investors and that the plan was readily adopted by his underlings. Tillerson rejected the claim under oath, while Exxon’s lawyer said New York had dragged the names of the company’s executives and engineers “through the mud” by advancing such a claim and then dropping it at the last minute.
During his opening statement to the judge, Exxon’s lawyer, Theodore Wells, said the state had been swayed to investigate the company by talks with environmentalists and billionaires who wanted to vilify the company at the expense of facts.
“It’s almost like the Russians trying to interfere with the election,” Wells said on the first day of the trial. “I mean, think about what’s going on here.”
New York claimed Exxon used two sets of numbers — one public, one secret — to account for greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon said the state, to cook up a discrepancy where none existed, was conflating two figures that served different purposes. On the last day of the trial, Wells called the entire case a “cruel joke.”
[Editor’s Note: New York Attorney General Letitia James released the following statement after a ruling was rendered in the case of People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobile Corporation:
“As Rex Tillerson admitted at trial, all investors are entitled to the truth. For the first time in history, ExxonMobil was compelled to answer publicly for their internal decisions that misled investors. 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. Despite this decision, we will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change.”]
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.