Description: Action alleging fraudulent scheme by Exxon Mobil Corporation to deceive investors about the company's management of risks posed by climate change regulation.
-
People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 02/27/2020 Decision Download Motion to intervene and cross-motion to submit an amicus curiae brief denied. New York Court Denied Nonprofit’s Motion to Intervene in Exxon Suit for Purposes of Unsealing Documents. A New York trial court denied a motion by the nonprofit Energy Policy Advocates and an individual board member to intervene in the New York attorney general’s unsuccessful case against Exxon Mobil Corporation for the purpose of moving to unseal certain judicial documents related to communications between a private attorney and the attorney general’s office prior to the filing of the case. After noting that none of the five documents at issue were entirely sealed and that all were publicly discussed and available with minor redactions, the court found that the limited redactions at issue “do not in any way undermine the important public policy assuring that judicial proceedings be open and transparent.” 02/25/2020 Affirmation Download Affirmation filed on behalf of defendant in response to proposed intervenors' motion to intervene. 02/05/2020 Response Download Response filed by proposed intervenors to cross-motion of Matthew Pawa for leave to file as amicus curiae. 01/28/2020 Reply Download Reply filed in support of motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking public access to judicial documents. 01/28/2020 Request Download Request for adjournment filed by proposed intervenors. 01/27/2020 Opposition Download Opposition filed by plaintiff to motion to intervene. 01/25/2020 Affirmation Download Affirmation filed in support of Matthew Pawa's cross-motion to appear as amicus curiae. 01/25/2020 Amicus Brief Download Proposed brief amicus curiae in opposition to motion to intervene filed. 01/25/2020 Brief Download Brief filed by Matthew Pawa in support of his cross-motion to appear as amicus curiae. 01/25/2020 Notice Download Notice of cross-motion to appear as amicus curiae filed by Matthew Pawa. An attorney whose communications with the attorney general’s office the proposed intervenors seek to unseal moved to appear as amicus curiae to oppose intervention. 01/10/2020 Memorandum Download Memorandum filed in support of proposed intervenors' motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking public access to judicial documents. 01/10/2020 Motion Download Motion to unseal filed. 01/10/2020 Motion to Intervene Download Motion to intervene filed for the limited purpose of seeking public access to judicial documents. 01/10/2020 Notice Download Notice of motion to intervene for the limited purpose of seeking public access to judicial documents filed. Nonprofit Group and Its Board Member Sought to Unseal Records in Attorney General’s Suit Against Exxon. In January 2020, the nonprofit Energy Policy Advocates and an individual board member of the group asked the New York Supreme Court to permit them to intervene in the New York attorney general’s unsuccessful case against Exxon Mobil Corporation for the purpose of moving to unseal judicial documents that the proposed intervenors said were “important to a vital public policy debate over policy and the increasing employment of state attorneys general at the request of private interests and to assist private ends.” The proposed intervenors’ papers described Energy Policy Advocates as a tax-exempt nonprofit “which conducts and publishes its public policy research using the federal Freedom of Information Act and similar state laws” and the individual as a radio and internet journalist who is a board member of the organization. The proposed intervenors had argued that “[t]he public deserves to see documentation of the effort by a tort lawyer to help his tort campaign against by enlisting the New York Office of Attorney General, successfully, if in pursuit of terribly unsuccessful prosecution at a cost, clearly, of millions of taxpayer dollars.” 12/10/2019 Decision Download Martin Act and Executive Law § 63(12) claims denied and action dismissed with prejudice. Trial Court Ruled for Exxon in New York’s Climate Change Securities Fraud Case. After a 12-day trial, a New York court found that the New York Office of the Attorney General failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) made any material misstatements or omissions that misled any reasonable investor about its practices or procedures for accounting for climate risk. The court therefore denied claims asserted under the Martin Act—New York’s securities fraud statute—and Executive Law § 63(12), which prohibits repeated or persistent fraudulent acts. Although the court granted the attorney general’s request to discontinue its common law and equitable fraud claims with prejudice, the court also said its decision established that Exxon would not have been held liable on any fraud-related claims since the attorney general failed to establish Exxon’s liability even for causes of action that did not require proof of the scienter and reliance elements of fraud. The court found that Exxon’s public disclosures in the 2013 to 2016 time period at issue in the case—including Form 10-K disclosures and March 2014 reports specifically addressing climate change risk and regulations that were prepared in consideration for withdrawal of shareholder proposals—were not misleading. The court said one of the March 2014 reports identified proxy costs of carbon and GHG costs as “distinct and separate metrics,” one of the factors leading the court to reject the premise of the attorney general’s case that Exxon’s disclosures “led the public to believe that its GHG cost assumptions for future projects had the same values assigned to its proxy cost of carbon.” The court also found that an analyst’s testimony undercut the attorney general’s assertion that information in the March 2014 reports was material to investors and found the attorney general’s expert testimony on materiality to be unpersuasive, “flatly contradicted by the weight of the evidence,” and “fundamentally flawed.” 12/10/2019 Order Download Court denied Exxon Mobil Corporation's post-trial motion opposing the attorney general's request to discontinue its fraud counts. 11/19/2019 Order to Show Cause Download Order to show cause issued for Exxon Mobil Corporation's post-trial motion opposing the attorney general's request to discontinue its fraud counts. 11/18/2019 Memorandum Download Post-trial memorandum filed by the Office of the Attorney General. Both sides filed post-trial memoranda and proposed findings of fact, with the attorney general arguing that the evidence proved that Exxon made “materially misleading representations to its investors concerning its use of an internal cost of carbon to account for the likelihood of increasingly stringent climate regulations.” 11/18/2019 Memorandum Download Post-trial memorandum filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. Both sides filed post-trial memoranda and proposed findings of fact. Exxon argued that the evidence showed that its disclosures were not materially misleading, particularly when viewed in the context of its financial statements, stock price, and analyst valuation and in light of investors’ expectations regarding the climate risk information provided in response to investor requests. Exxon said the evidence showed that “reasonable investors would not have considered the disclosures at issue here to have significantly altered the total mix of information available.” 11/18/2019 Motion Download Post-trial motion filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation opposing the attorney general's request to discontinue its fraud counts. Exxon Asked New York Trial Court to Reject Attorney General’s Withdrawal of Fraud Claims. After the New York attorney general’s office said during closing arguments in its enforcement action against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) that it was abandoning two fraud counts, Exxon filed a post-trial motion opposing the request to discontinue the claims. Exxon said the attorney general’s “last-minute gambit to avoid judicial repudiation of its claims should not be countenanced” because New York’s procedural rules bar unilateral discontinuance of claims after the close of evidence and because any exercise of discretion by the court to permit the attorney general to discontinue the claims would be inappropriate. Exxon argued that without “express acknowledgment” that the evidence did not show the intent or reliance necessary for the fraud claims, Exxon “can never repair the reputational damage … inflicted on the Company and its employees” or deter “copycat litigants” from pursuing identical claims. If the court allowed the attorney general to withdraw the fraud claims, the two remaining claims would be a Martin Act securities fraud cause of action and a related claim under New York’s Executive Law. 11/18/2019 Not Available Download Proposed findings of fact filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 11/18/2019 Not Available Download Proposed findings of fact filed by the Office of the Attorney General. 10/16/2019 Order Download Court denied Exxon Mobil Corporation motion in limine to exclude the proposed testimony of Peter Boukouzis. 10/16/2019 Order Download Court denied Exxon Mobil Corporation motion in limine to exclude the proposed testimony of Eli Bartov. 10/16/2019 Order Download Court denied Office of the Attorney General motion for adverse inference against ExxonMobil for spoliation of evidence. 10/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by ExxonMobil in response to the court's October 10, 2019 notice concerning bifurcation. 10/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the Office of the Attorney General in response to the October 10, 2019 notice concerning bifurcation. 10/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the Office of the Attorney General in response to Exxon Mobil Corporation's October 11, 2019 concerning third-party discovery. 10/11/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation opposing plaintiff's motion for an adverse inference. 10/11/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by ExxonMobil seeking the court's assistance with respect to third-party discovery. 10/11/2019 Memorandum of Law Download Memorandum of law filed by the Office of the Attorney General in opposition to Exxon's motion in limine to exclude the proposed testimony of Eli Bartov. 10/11/2019 Memorandum of Law Download Memorandum of law filed by the Office of the Attorney General in opposition to Exxon's motion in limine to exclude the proposed testimony of Peter Boukouzis. 10/10/2019 Notice Download Court notice issued directing the parties to advise the court as to whether they agree to the bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of the trial. 10/08/2019 Notice Download Court notice issued concerning timing of trial and other trial issues. 10/07/2019 Memorandum Download Pre-trial memorandum filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 10/07/2019 Memorandum Download Pretrial memorandum filed by the Office of the Attorney General. 10/07/2019 Statement Download Joint statement of undisputed facts filed. 10/05/2019 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed by the Office of the Attorney General in support of its motion for an adverse inference against ExxonMobil for spoliation of evidence. 10/04/2019 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation in support of its motion in limine to exclude the proposed testimony of Eli Bartov. 10/04/2019 Motion Download Memorandum of law filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation in support of its motion in limine to exclude the proposed testimony of Peter Boukouzis. 08/08/2019 Transcript Download Hearing held. 08/07/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the Office of the Attorney General in response to Exxon's August 5, 2019 letter concerning third-party witnesses. 08/05/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to the Office of the Attorney General's August 2, 2019 letter. 08/02/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the Office of the Attorney General in response to Exxon's July 30, 2019 letter concerning third-party discovery. 07/30/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon seeking court's assistance in third-party discovery. 07/17/2019 Order Download Order issued granting Office of the Attorney General's motion for a protective order. 06/28/2019 Transcript Download Hearing held. 06/25/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to Attorney General Schneiderman's corrective affirmation. 06/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Office of the Attorney General with second affirmation from Attorney General Schneiderman. 06/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the Office of the Attorney General in response to court order regarding deposition of the OAG. 06/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by the Office of the Attorney General submitting documents for in camera review regarding State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at NYU Law School. 06/19/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon regarding deposition of the Office of the Attorney General. 06/17/2019 Answer Download Amended answer filed. 06/12/2019 Transcript Download Hearing held and Office of the Attorney General's motions granted in part. State Court Dismissed Exxon’s Defenses Accusing Attorney General’s Office of Misconduct in Climate Change Fraud Action. At a hearing on June 12, 2019, a New York trial court dismissed affirmative defenses related to alleged conflicts of interest and official misconduct in the New York Attorney General’s climate change fraud action against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). The court reserved its decision on Exxon’s defense of selective enforcement pending submission of additional documents. The court directed the parties to submit three-page letters on potential depositions of Office of Attorney General (OAG) staff. In addition, the court granted OAG’s motion to seal certain emails between OAG attorneys and a third-party attorney. The court also addressed a dispute over access to former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s personal email account, which Exxon alleges was used to conduct official business relevant to Exxon’s defenses. The court directed OAG to provide “a less carefully worded statement” to provide confidence “that anything that was official business or related to this investigation was made available” to Exxon “via communications sent by Mr. Schneiderman to his official account.” 05/21/2019 Notice Download Oral argument on motions to dismiss affirmative defenses, to seal, and for protective order adjourned to June 12, 2019. New York Trial Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Discovery Disputes, Affirmative Defenses in Attorney General’s Fraud Action Against Exxon. The New York State Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for June 12, 2019 to hear oral argument on three pending motions in the New York attorney general’s fraud action against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). The attorney general alleges that Exxon deceived investors about its management of climate change risks. The first of the three motions that the court will hear on June 12 is the attorney general’s motion to dismiss five affirmative defenses that assert that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) committed prosecutorial misconduct in commencing and conducting the underlying investigation of ExxonMobil; the attorney general alternatively seeks a protective order limiting discovery on these defenses. In the second motion, the attorney general seeks to seal five emails between OAG attorneys and a third-party attorney in which the third-party attorney provides information to the OAG about Exxon. OAG designated the emails as confidential in its production to Exxon. In the third motion, the attorney general seeks a protective order barring Exxon from deposing OAG attorneys. The attorney general indicates that the motion to seal and motion for a protective order should only be considered if the court does not dismiss the prosecutorial misconduct affirmative defenses. Other disputes have arisen in the course of discovery but are not yet the subject of motions, including a dispute over access to former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s personal email account, which Exxon alleges was used to conduct official business relevant to Exxon’s defenses. 05/20/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general in response to Exxon request for access to Schneiderman personal email account. 05/20/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon concerning access to former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's personal email account. 05/17/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general in response to Exxon's May 15, 2019 letter. 05/16/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon regarding attorney general's third-party witness disclosures. 05/15/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by attorney general in support of motion for a protective order to prohibit Exxon from deposing the Office of the Attorney General. 05/15/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by attorney general in support of motion to seal. 05/08/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon in opposition to the attorney general's motion to seal. 05/08/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon opposing the attorney general's motion for a protective order barring depositions of the Office of the Attorney General. 05/06/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general in response to Exxon's May 2, 2019 letter. 05/06/2019 Notice Download Court issued notice adjourning motions for protective order and to seal to May 22, 2019 and indicating it was inclined to grant all affirmative relief each party was requesting with respect to various discovery issues. 05/06/2019 Order to Show Cause Download Order to show cause issued for motion to prohibit Exxon from conducting a deposition of the Office of the Attorney General. 05/06/2019 Order to Show Cause Download Order to show cause issued for motion to seal. 05/02/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to the attorney general's April 26, 2019 letter. 05/02/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon regarding a discovery dispute. 04/26/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general requesting enforcement of order during March 21, 2019 hearing requiring Exxon to meet and confer. 04/26/2019 Memorandum of Law Download Memorandum of law filed by attorney general in support of motion to seal. 04/24/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by attorney general in support of motion for a protective order to prohibit Exxon from deposing the Office of the Attorney General. 04/18/2019 Notice Download Oral argument scheduled for May 22, 2019 on motion to dismiss affirmative defenses. 04/17/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to attorney general's April 11, 2019 letter regarding its intention to move for a protective order barring deposition of the Office of the Attorney General. 04/16/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by Exxon in further support of its cross-motion for leave to amend. 04/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to attorney general's April 11, 2019 pre-motion letter. 04/11/2019 Letter Download Pre-motion letter filed by attorney general in connection with intention to move for a protective order barring Exxon from deposing Office of the Attorney General attorneys. 04/11/2019 Letter Download Pre-motion letter filed by attorney general in connection with a dispute regarding the treatment of third-party communications produced by the attorney general. 04/09/2019 Reply Download Reply brief filed by attorney general in further support of motion to dismiss certain defenses or for a protective order and in opposition to Exxon's cross-motion for leave to amend its answer. 03/27/2019 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon opposing the attorney general's motion to dismiss certain defenses or for a protective order and supporting its cross-motion for leave to amend. 03/20/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general in response to March 19 court notice. 03/19/2019 Notice Download Court notice issued regarding discovery and other issues to be addressed at March 21, 2019 conference. 03/18/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general in response to Exxon's March 15 letter. 03/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon regarding additional discovery issues on which the parties had been unable to reach agreement. 03/15/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to attorney general's March 4, 2019 letter. 03/04/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by attorney general requesting enforcement of four document production requests. 03/04/2019 Motion to Dismiss Download Memorandum of law submitted in support of attorney general's motion to dismiss affirmative defenses or, in the alternative, for a protective order. 02/27/2019 Notice Download Court notice issued allowing attorney general to file motion to dismiss or to limit discovery. New York Court Allowed Attorney General to Move to Dismiss Exxon’s Prosecutorial Misconduct Defenses in Climate Fraud Case, Said Discovery on Defenses Could Continue in Meantime. On February 27, 2019, a New York trial court issued a notice allowing the New York attorney general to file a motion to dismiss certain defenses asserted by Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) in the attorney general’s climate change fraud suit against Exxon. The attorney general contended that five of Exxon’s defenses that were based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were “inadequately pleaded and irrelevant.” In addition, the attorney general told the state court that the theory behind Exxon’s selective-enforcement claim had already been rejected by the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. In the alternative, the attorney general said it would file motion for a protective order limiting discovery in connection with the five defenses. Exxon opposed the attorney general’s request to file the motions, arguing that the motions were meritless and premature. Exxon said the attorney general could not rely on the federal court decision, which Exxon said did not consider the viability of the state-law defenses is asserting in this case. Exxon also noted that the attorney general had told the Second Circuit that it should affirm dismissal of Exxon’s constitutional claims because Exxon would have a full opportunity to raise objections to the state civil enforcement action. Citing federal and state court decisions in Texas that were generally supportive of Exxon’s theories and claims, Exxon also urged the court to reject the attorney general’s “cherry picking of judicial authority.” In granting permission for the attorney general to file its motion, the court noted that the parties “are involved in disputes in multiple fora and appear to have taken different positions on various issues in different courts.” Nonetheless, the court allowed the motion; the court also said Exxon could proceed with discovery on its defenses. The next conference scheduled in the case is on June 25, 2019. 02/26/2019 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to attorney general's pre-motion letter. 02/22/2019 Letter Download Pre-motion letter submitted by attorney general in connection with forthcoming motion to dismiss certain Exxon defenses or, in the alternative, for a protective order to limit discovery on the defenses. 12/04/2018 Order Download Motion to disqualify Justice Ostrager denied. 11/15/2018 Order Download Preliminary conference order issued. Trial Set for October 2019. On November 15, 2018, the court signed a preliminary conference order scheduling the trial to begin on October 23, 2019. 11/13/2018 Answer Download Answer filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation. 11/13/2018 Answer Download Answer filed. 11/07/2018 Brief Download Brief filed by Exxon Mobil Corporation opposing plaintiff's motion requesting judicial disqualification. 11/07/2018 Transcript Download Conference held and motion for judicial disqualification denied. New York Judge Denied Motion for Disqualification in State’s Exxon Fraud Case but Said He Would Sell All Exxon Stock. On November 7, 2018, a New York State Supreme Court judge denied the New York Office of the Attorney General’s motion for judicial disqualification in the State’s fraud case against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon). The attorney general argued that the case should be reassigned from the judge who had presided over the attorney general’s subpoena enforcement proceeding due to the judge’s ownership of Exxon stock. The attorney general contended that its waiver of disqualification in the earlier proceeding did not constitute a waiver in the present action. Although he denied the disqualification motion, the judge told the parties that he would divest all Exxon holdings by November 8, 2018. The attorney general’s office indicated it would not appeal the denial of the motion. 11/02/2018 Affirmation Download Affirmation filed in support of plaintiff's motion request judicial disqualification. 11/02/2018 Letter Download Joint letter filed with information concerning court's supervision of subpoena enforcement proceeding. 11/02/2018 Notice Download Notice of motion requesting judicial disqualification filed by attorney general. 10/31/2018 Notice Download Notice filed by court directing the party to file letters with information about court's supervision of investigative phase. 10/30/2018 Letter Download Letter filed by Exxon in response to attorney general's letter supporting request for recusal. 10/29/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by attorney general to response to Exxon's letter concerning request for recusal and to address court's question regarding whether there was a knowing and express waiver of judicial disqualification. 10/25/2018 Notice Download Notice filed by court in connection with attorney general's request for recusal. 10/24/2018 Complaint Download Summons and complaint filed. New York Attorney General Filed Fraud Action Against Exxon for Alleged Misrepresentations in Climate Disclosures. On October 24, 2018, the New York attorney general filed an action alleging that Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) perpetrated a “longstanding fraudulent scheme … to deceive investors and the investment community … concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change.” The lawsuit followed a multi-year investigation that became public after the attorney general issued an investigatory subpoena to Exxon in November 2015. In its complaint, the attorney general alleged that Exxon had made materially false and misleading representations concerning the proxy cost of carbon dioxide that it claimed to use to simulate the impact of future climate change regulations. In particular, the complaint asserted that Exxon made material misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts concerning “(i) its use of proxy costs in its cost projections, including in investment decision-making, business planning, oil and gas reserves and resource base assessments, and impairment evaluations; (ii) its consistent application of proxy costs; (iii) its use of proxy costs in its demand and price projections; and (iv) the risks to its business posed by a two degree scenario.” The complaint asserted a securities fraud cause of action under New York’s Martin Act, as well as causes of action for persistent fraud and illegality in violation of Executive Law § 63(12), actual fraud, and equitable fraud. The relief sought includes injunctive relief, a comprehensive review of Exxon’s alleged failure to apply a consistent proxy cost and the economic and financial consequences of such failure, damages, disgorgement of amounts obtained in connection with the alleged violations of law, and restitution for investors. 10/24/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by Exxon in response to attorney general's letter seeking judge's recusal. 10/24/2018 Letter Download Letter submitted by attorney general regarding filing of summons and complaint and requesting that the judge decline to preside over the action. -
New York Attorney General Investigation of ExxonMobil
Case Documents:
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/04/2015 Subpoena Download Subpoena issued. New York Attorney General Issued Subpoena to Exxon Mobil Regarding Climate Disclosures. On November 5, 2015, Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) confirmed that it had received a subpoena from the New York State Attorney General’s Office related to the company’s statements to investors and its board of directors regarding climate change risks and their consistency with the company’s internal research. The subpoena reportedly seeks extensive financial records, emails, and other documents covering a 40-year period as part of an investigation that began a year earlier. The investigation is being conducted under the State’s Martin Act, which forbids financial fraud and gives the State broad investigative powers. The investigation is also reported to be looking into whether Exxon violated state consumer protection laws. The subpoena itself is not publicly available, but reports on the subpoena are available in the New York Times, Bloomberg Business, and InsideClimate News. [Update: The subpoena subsequently became public when Exxon included it in filings made in the federal district court for the Northern District of Texas.]