Judge Hearing New York AG's Lawsuit Against ExxonMobil Agrees to Divest From Energy Co.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager of the Commercial Division said in court on Wednesday that he would sell his shares in the company—which amount to somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 in one fund, and an unknown amount in a retirement account.
November 08, 2018 at 02:49 PM
4 minute read
The judge set to hear New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood's lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. has agreed to divest from his current stock in the gas and oil company and decline any restitution that may come from the case for investors.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager of the Commercial Division said in court on Wednesday that he would sell his shares in the company—which amount to somewhere between $100,000 and $250,000 in one fund, and an unknown amount in a retirement account.
Underwood's office had asked Ostrager, after filing their suit against Exxon last month, to recuse himself from the case because of his stock in the company. A spokeswoman for Underwood said his decision to divest addressed their concerns.
“Our office raised specific concerns regarding the court's ownership of a significant quantity of Exxon stock, which were addressed by Justice Ostrager's decision to sell the shares and renounce his portion of any potential restitution shareholders may receive,” said Amy Spitalnick, spokeswoman for Underwood.
The office will no longer seek his recusal from the case because of his decision to divest. They will also withdraw a motion they filed last week for judicial disqualification, which could have forced Ostrager to give up the case on appeal.
Ostrager had originally indicated that he would not recuse himself from the case over his shares in the company because the attorney general's office had already waived his recusal in a different, but related, legal action involving Exxon. In that case, the state was moving to compel Exxon to cooperate with a subpoena into its representations to investors. Ostrager ultimately ordered Exxon to comply with the subpoena.
That litigation, brought in 2016, was part of a broader investigation from Underwood's office into Exxon, which started three years ago. That resulted in a lawsuit from the state last month alleging that Exxon had misled its investors on the financial risks posed by more stringent regulations promulgated to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Theodore Wells Jr., a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison who represents Exxon, had argued in a filing last month that because the attorney general's office had waived Ostrager's recusal in the subpoena matter, the litigation over alleged fraud shouldn't be any different. Ostrager suggested the same in his own filing with the court.
“If, as Mr. Wells represents, the parties waived any conflict that might inhere by reason of the Court's ownership of the ExxonMobil shares, the Court is disinclined to recuse itself for the reasons state in Mr. Wells' letters,” Ostrager wrote. “The Court does not believe that its ownership of the ExxonMobil shared would, in any way, affect the Court's impartiality in dealing with the issues raised by the recently filed case.”
The state attorney general's office then filed a motion for judicial disqualification to remove Ostrager from the case. The initial decision on his recusal would have been entirely up to him, though it could have been challenged on appeal.
Exxon argued in a filing this week opposing the motion for judicial disqualification that Ostrager should remain on the case because he's familiar with the issues involved, having presided over the subpoena action for the last two years. They also said the waiver from two years ago should carry over into the fraud lawsuit.
Those arguments are now moot after Ostrager decided to divest from the company. A spokesman from Exxon declined to comment on his decision, which was made from the bench this week.
The lawsuit was filed last month by Underwood's office, which claimed that Exxon falsely told investors it was preparing to adjust its business for future climate change regulations, when in reality it was doing much less than it claimed.
While the attorney general's office already has power to investigate companies for allegedly defrauding investors under the Martin Act, the state has a particular stake in this litigation. The New York State Common Retirement Fund, the state pension fund for public employees, holds shares in Exxon with a combined value of about $1.5 billion.
READ MORE:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Distribution of Dangerous Products Via Online Marketplaces
- 2The Products Liability Case Against Tianeptine: The Deadly ‘Dietary Supplement’ Found at Your Local Store
- 3The Evolving Landscape of Joint and Several Liability in Pa.: A Post-'Spencer' Analysis
- 4A Deep Dive Into the Product-Line Exception in Pennsylvania
- 5When Personal Injury and Family Law Collide
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250