A New York judged ruled today that Exxon did not deceive investors regarding the “financial risks of climate change”:
Exxon won a closely watched securities-fraud trial that delved into its internal accounting for the financial risks of climate change https://t.co/jbGONrFEZ0
— Bloomberg Markets (@markets) December 10, 2019
Whoops!
“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."https://t.co/cDD8UnpwqK by @eelarson
— Ari Natter (@AriNatter) December 10, 2019
Climate alarmists hardest hit:
Recommended
An NY judge found Exxon Mobil Corp. not guilty of fraud, saying Tuesday that the New York state attorney general had failed to establish the oil giant had deceived its investors about how it accounted for the cost of future climate-change regulations.https://t.co/3Sqo1mytXB
— Jimmy Vielkind (@JimmyVielkind) December 10, 2019
Dems like Elizabeth Warren had been banking on a guilty verdict in the case:
It’s illegal to lie to Congress, to a court, and even to your shareholders. It should also be illegal for Exxon and other giant corporations to lie to federal regulators. I've got a plan for that. https://t.co/BkkcRYHVzo
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 12, 2019
Now we’ll have to wait to see how this decision affects cases in other states, like what’s going on in Massachusetts:
Exxon Mobil knew the truth about fossil fuels and climate change and lied to protect their business model at the expense of the planet. The greed of the fossil fuel industry must end. https://t.co/kdpqczs1Vo
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) January 11, 2019
Lawyer Gabriel Malor has read the decision and calls it “scathing”:
Flipping through the state court's decision in favor of Exxon against NY AG's shareholder lawsuit. It's scathing, and Judge Ostrager's asides reveal that this lawsuit was always about the AGs' politics and not the law.
Also, Always. Read. The. Footnotes. pic.twitter.com/An0nqCpQf0
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 10, 2019
Basically, the judge found the state’s witnesses as not credible:
Here's how the judge compared the credibility of the Exxon witnesses with the expert witness New York brought in, who argued that the announcement of California that it was opening an investigation into Exxon constituted evidence that Exxon had misled investors. pic.twitter.com/WqcnWUzzoI
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 10, 2019
The judge straight up scorns the New York expert witness who equated merely opening an investigation with evidence that Exxon had committed a crime. pic.twitter.com/ANagZm4gMr
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 10, 2019
LOL. Their witness admitted “he did not understand some of the models”?
And here was the NY AG's other expert: pic.twitter.com/AAJDzgnice
— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) December 10, 2019
Cato Institutes Walter Olson called it an “ebarassing defeat” for New York’s AG “in a case that should never have been brought.” THREAD ==>
New York's attorney general sustains an embarrassing defeat in a case that never should have been brought. /1 https://t.co/A3cUoZKi7x
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
The Exxon case got off on the wrong foot from the start when since-disgraced NY AG Eric Schneiderman signaled that he wanted to use it as a vehicle against wrongful advocacy of bad public policy positions. /2 https://t.co/EpBeqVEe8u
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
Schneiderman's moves to use subpoenas in the Exxon case to chill disapproved advocacy were widely discussed by me and others /3 https://t.co/3PagG2glI5
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
Editors at places like USA Today and the Washington Post were also troubled by the First Amendment implications of New York's legal theories against Exxon /4 https://t.co/3I6CwHKZmo
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
Any defendant would still need to fear New York's elastic, ultra-broad Martin Act, which gives the state's AG unusual power that is hard to square with due process protection. (Note that even with the Act, NY managed to lose.) /5 https://t.co/nLvZzirc1O
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
At the last minute, Schneiderman's successor as NY AG, Letitia James, dropped two counts that would have required a showing of intent by Exxon. That still left the Martin Act /6 https://t.co/77ec7MFQGP
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
If a state like New York can bend and twist legal concepts like that of securities fraud to carry on an essentially political vendetta against a corporate enemy, how safe are other businesses? Not very, suggests Prof. John Baker: /7 https://t.co/c23A5Dr6Op
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
It continues to surprise me that orgs that should know better bought into the premises of the New York suit. This is not a question of one's views on climate, but of whether there ought to remain an arena of discussion free to all sides, incl. business. /8 https://t.co/Vzg1odZL07
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
In the end, Judge Ostrager ruled that the state had not shown Exxon investors to have been misled. Unless the state is rash enough to appeal, that should be that for this misbegotten case. /9, end for now https://t.co/6ILlZ45k5l
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) December 10, 2019
You can read the entire decision here:
The Exxon "Climate Fraud" decision is out, and it is a scathing rebuke of the NY Attorney General's case: https://t.co/zBtZfV7e0P
— Andrew M. Grossman (@andrewmgrossman) December 10, 2019
***
