NY AG, in Climate Change Trial Against Exxon, Concedes Fraud Charges but Presses Securities Law Violation
Exxon attorney Ted Wells, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, was quick to criticize the late concession on fraud charges, and described the remaining contested issue under the Martin Act as trivial.
November 07, 2019 at 03:39 PM
3 minute read
New York County Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager interrupted a New York assistant attorney general's closing argument after just a few sentences Thursday, stopping him as he began to lay out the state's case that the energy company ExxonMobil violated the Martin Act, a state law aimed at protecting shareholders from fraud.
Along with Martin Act violations, the state accused the energy giant of actual and equitable fraud in its complaint, which described a pattern of deception at the company related to how it estimated the effects of climate change and associated regulation on its business.
Ostrager asked assistant attorney general Jonathan Zweig if he intended to concede the actual and equitable fraud charges by discussing only the Martin Act in his closing argument.
Zweig confirmed that the attorney general's office is conceding the fraud charges and spent the next hour arguing that Exxon's shareholders cared how the company quantified the effects of climate change and that Exxon was inconsistent in its use of climate-related financial assumptions.
The company should pay $476 million to $1.6 billion in damages to a shareholder restitution fund, Zweig said.
Exxon attorney Ted Wells, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, was quick to criticize the late concession on fraud charges when Zweig finished his argument.
"They get to say that they just dismissed these claims for strategic purposes," Wells said, asking Ostrager to issue a finding that the claims had to be dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Ostrager pointed out that he's dismissing the claims with prejudice, but Wells said that won't help Exxon and its current and former leaders who have suffered severe damage to their reputations because of the attorney general's investigation.
He said he expects the attorney general's office to try to litigate the fraud claims in the press, which could lead to more hate mail for Exxon executives.
"The press is here," Ostrager told Wells in the full courtroom, which included rows of journalists. "They've heard what I said. They heard what you said. They understand these claims are no longer part of the case."
Wells said he wanted to do more research, so Ostrager agreed he could submit a posttrial motion.
In his own closing argument, Wells described the remaining contested issue under the Martin Act as trivial. Shareholders didn't care about how Exxon made its cost assumptions for 2030 and 2040, he said, and Exxon didn't release enough information for real economic analysis anyway.
Exxon told shareholders it would apply one type of cost assumption "where appropriate," a qualifier that means the statement cannot be materially misleading, Wells said. Zweig said that defense doesn't hold up for Exxon's Canadian projects in Alberta, where Exxon estimated costs differently even though the effects of climate change were likely to be extremely expensive.
Wells argued that the cost assumptions related only to unfunded projects or concepts, with no effect on the company's financial records.
"Nothing happened, and nobody cared," he said.
Posttrial motions and proposed findings of fact are due Nov. 18, Ostrager told the lawyers.
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 AllLukoil Pan Americas Sues Investment Firm Over Alleged $18 Million Breach
Judge Dismisses Solar Power Startup from Lawsuit Alleging Fraud By Ex-CEO
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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