New York Goes Full Potato in Lawsuit Against ExxonMobil

New York Attorney General ran straight past full stupidity and went straight to potato.  The eventual backlash should be spectacular.

 

The underlying Environmental "political correction" fascism being imposed by the New York Attorney General is designed with an end game plan: the eventual takedown of the global oil and gas industry.  

New York Sues ExxonMobil For Investor Fraud

"More important is the reputation damage that Exxon will continue to incur, which is not a trivial matter, as Liam Denning of Bloomberg Opinion points out. Oil companies are not the darlings of Wall Street in the way they used to be, so investors could grow increasingly wary of the sector. Divestment campaigns have already inflicted a toll in terms of reputation, but as time goes on, the oil industry will become increasingly targeted. Moreover, the more reputational damage a highly visible company like ExxonMobil receives, the more politically viable future climate regulation becomes. At some point, investors will abandon ship."

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Press Release from Attorney General, and an excerpt.  The link has the full frothing at the mouth Politically Correct blatherings:

A.G. Underwood Files Lawsuit Against Exxonmobil For Defrauding Investors Regarding Financial Risk The Company Faces From Climate Change Regulations

Investigation into Exxon’s Business Practices Uncovered an Alleged Fraudulent Scheme to Systematically and Repeatedly Deceive Investors About the Significant Impact That Future Climate Change Regulations Could Have on the Company’s Assets and Value

Alleged Fraud Reached Highest Levels, as former Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson Knew of Misrepresentations for Years

NEW YORK – Attorney General Barbara D. Underwood today announced a lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation(“Exxon”), alleging that the company misled investors regarding the risk that climate change regulations posed to its business. As alleged in the complaint, Exxon for years assured investors that it was accounting for the likelihood of increasingly stringent regulation of greenhouse gas emissions – which are driving climate change and which Exxon emits in large quantity – by rigorously and consistently applying an escalating cost of those emissions to its business planning, investment decisions, calculations of the amount and value of company reserves and resources, impairment assessments, and projections of future demand for oil and gas. However, Exxon did not abide by these representations, and instead did much less than it claimed, deceiving investors as to the company’s true financial exposure to increasing regulations and policies adopted to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change.

Exxon marketed the company as a secure long-term investment and courted long-term investors such as institutional shareholders, life insurance companies, and pension funds. For example, the New York State Common Retirement Fund (CRF), which is entrusted with the retirement security of over one million state employees and retirees, and the New York State Teachers Retirement System, which serves over 425,000 members, hold Exxon shares with a combined value of approximately $1.5 billion. These investors depend on companies to provide complete, accurate information about the value of their assets to make informed investment decisions. In fact, over the course of the past decade, Exxon institutional shareholders repeatedly sought more information and disclosure regarding the risk the company faced due to climate change regulations.

“Investors put their money and their trust in Exxon – which assured them of the long-term value of their shares, as the company claimed to be factoring the risk of increasing climate change regulation into its business decisions. Yet as our investigation found, Exxon often did no such thing,” Attorney General Underwood said. “Instead, Exxon built a facade to deceive investors into believing that the company was managing the risks of climate change regulation to its business when, in fact, it was intentionally and systematically underestimating or ignoring them, contrary to its public representations.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't somebody discuss how they have taken the court battles to the State courts because they have failed to win in Federal court?  Do you remember the details of this angle?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full frontal legal assault incoming.  From the bottom of the press release, look at the proposed actions, and the legal army being assembled to take down ExxonMobil.  This is an Environmental "political correction" aimed squarely are dismantling the oil and gas industry.

The lawsuit announced today was filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County. The suit seeks an order prohibiting Exxon from continuing to misrepresent its practices in this area, and requiring it to correct its past misrepresentations; in other words, to tell investors the truth. The suit also asks the court to award damages, a disgorgement of all monies obtained in connection with the alleged fraud, and restitution. Additionally, the complaint requests the court to direct a comprehensive review of Exxon’s failure to apply a proxy cost consistent with its representations, and the economic and financial consequences of that failure. 

The lawsuit is being handled by Assistant Attorneys General Jonathan Zweig and Rita Burghardt McDonough of the Investor Protection Bureau, Mandy DeRoche of the Environmental Protection Bureau, Special Counsel Steven Glassman of the Division of Economic Justice, Special Assistant Attorney General Matthew Eisenson, and Project Attorneys Benjamin Cole and Joanna Zwosta, and Chief Economist Peter Malaspina, under the supervision of Environmental Protection Bureau Chief Lemuel M. Srolovic, Executive Deputy Attorney General Manisha M. Sheth of the Division of Economic Justice, Chief Deputy Attorney General Janet Sabel, and Chief of Staff and Deputy Attorney General Brian Mahanna. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, can you go back and find Jan's posts about how lawsuits like this played out in the northeast?  I remember that he showed how the whole process is set up to make Big Oil not only pay huge settlements, but fail altogether.  I also recall that he showed how it is the laws themselves that are written poorly, to say the least, that is the reason the Federal courts always throw out the lawsuits.  Meaning something like: poorly written laws were enacted with regards to climate change, the laws contained penalties for failing to follow the laws, but if a company followed the laws the were in fact agreeing with the climate change analysis as written in the laws, thereby making them illegal companies because they admitted they were breaking the laws about climate change that THEY AGREED WITH!  Some kind of vicious cycle or another like that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Tom, can you go back and find Jan's posts about how lawsuits like this played out in the northeast?  I remember that he showed how the whole process is set up to make Big Oil not only pay huge settlements, but fail altogether.  I also recall that he showed how it is the laws themselves that are written poorly, to say the least, that is the reason the Federal courts always throw out the lawsuits.  Meaning something like: poorly written laws were enacted with regards to climate change, the laws contained penalties for failing to follow the laws, but if a company followed the laws the were in fact agreeing with the climate change analysis as written in the laws, thereby making them illegal companies because they admitted they were breaking the laws about climate change that THEY AGREED WITH!  Some kind of vicious cycle or another like that.

Excellent points, Dan.  This rings a bell with me as well, these laws were deliberately poorly written, along the lines of "do you still beat your wife" impossible to win legal situations.

I'm actually pretty tied up today, but I can look into this more on the weekend (tomorrow).

@Jan van Eck to the white courtesy phone please.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

Excellent points, Dan.  This rings a bell with me as well, these laws were deliberately poorly written, along the lines of "do you still beat your wife" impossible to win legal situations.

Exactly.  The other point Jan made was that the activists/lawyers went to bankrupt state and local governments to file the lawsuits because they knew, correctly, that the states and local governments would make sure their own cuts in the settlements would help pull them out of their poor fiscal management/self inflicted problems, re-filling their budget shortfalls and allowing them to pay their municipal workers/police/fire and get some form of lawfulness back into their communities.  (sentence is too long, but oh well)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Exactly.  The other point Jan made was that the activists/lawyers went to bankrupt state and local governments to file the lawsuits because they knew, correctly, that the states and local governments would make sure their own cuts in the settlements would help pull them out of their poor fiscal management/self inflicted problems, re-filling their budget shortfalls and allowing them to pay their municipal workers/police/fire and get some form of lawfulness back into their communities.  (sentence is too long, but oh well)

I read that Stormy Daniels lost her suit against Trump and was forced to pay his legal fees.  If these people lose to Exxon, are they also required to pay legal fees? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Exactly.  The other point Jan made was that the activists/lawyers went to bankrupt state and local governments to file the lawsuits because they knew, correctly, that the states and local governments would make sure their own cuts in the settlements would help pull them out of their poor fiscal management/self inflicted problems, re-filling their budget shortfalls and allowing them to pay their municipal workers/police/fire and get some form of lawfulness back into their communities.  (sentence is too long, but oh well)

New York City this year filed several lawsuits against oil & gas companies on "environmental" grounds.  ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, all sued by NYC.  Assorted legal dox can be downloaded here:

http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-new-york-v-bp-plc/

^ These are totally different cases from the new lawsuit that New York Attorney General filed against ExxonMobil.

These "envoronmental" lawsuits are really starting to feel like a plague of locusts by lawyers looking for a big fat payday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exxon Mobil lied to investors about climate change regulation, New York lawsuit says

“Climate change deception is central to Exxon’s business model,” Center for Climate Integrity executive director Richard Wiles said in a statement. “It should come as no surprise to anyone who has examined the record that Exxon appears to have mislead its own shareholders about its exposure to climate-related financial risks.”

OH RLY?

Guilty until proven innocent?

 

 

dbcdced37b4f8a23fd6c21774b38673628b3d74f20b492157d31b19bff4d16a3.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

New York City this year filed several lawsuits against oil & gas companies on "environmental" grounds.  ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, all sued by NYC.  Assorted legal dox can be downloaded here:

http://climatecasechart.com/case/city-new-york-v-bp-plc/

^ These are totally different cases from the new lawsuit that New York Attorney General filed against ExxonMobil.

These "envoronmental" lawsuits are really starting to feel like a plague of locusts by lawyers looking for a big fat payday.

Man, the lawyers are racking up some serious fees!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foreign money bankrolls climate change lawsuits against US oil companies

Politically motivated government officials who joined with environmental activists and academic figures to prosecute energy companies and silence climate skeptics have experienced significant setbacks in recent months. The #ExxonKnew campaign was born out of the idea that Exxon Mobil, along with other energy companies, deliberately misled the public and their own shareholders about the perceived dangers of climate change. In the past few days, I’ve reported on the flaws in the arguments underpinning this campaign and on recent legal rulings that exonerate the energy companies.

Chris Horner, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise Institute based in D.C., recently discovered through open record requests how green activists are infiltrating state attorneys general and governor offices across the country, enacting the policies of their benefactors. These records also revealed efforts by democratic megadonor Wendy Abrams to recruit Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for the cause.

But where is all the money for this anti-energy campaign coming from? As it turns out, some of it derives from overseas sources. ...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Man, the lawyers are racking up some serious fees!

What Do These Climate Change Lawsuits Have In Common? Trial Lawyers

The city of Baltimore announced Friday it sued more than two dozen oil and gas companies for damages allegedly brought about by man-made global warming.

It’s the 13th such lawsuit to be filed by state and local governments trying to sue fossil fuel companies over global warming. Baltimore, like the others, is trying to apply public nuisance lawsuits to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But that’s not the only thing these suits have in common. Buried at the bottom of Baltimore’s press release on their new lawsuit is disclosure that the city will be “assisted by outside counsel from Sher Edling LLP.”

Sher Edling is one of several law firms behind the slew of climate lawsuits. Sher Edling is also working with six California cities and counties, as well as the state of Rhode Island, to sue fossil fuel companies over global warming.

... A city spokesman would not divulge if Sher Edling was working on a contingency fee basis, but if they were, the firm stands to make millions, if not billions, of dollars based on the past and future damages Baltimore and other plaintiffs claim are associated with man-made warming.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Politically motivated government officials who joined with environmental activists and academic figures to prosecute energy companies and silence climate skeptics have experienced significant setbacks in recent months. The #ExxonKnew campaign was born out of the idea that Exxon Mobil, along with other energy companies, deliberately misled the public and their own shareholders about the perceived dangers of climate change. In the past few days, I’ve reported on the flaws in the arguments underpinning this campaign and on recent legal rulings that exonerate the energy companies.

Excerpts:

” including attempting “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon Mobil is a corrupt institution.”

The evidence indicates that wealthy organizations, both foreign and domestic, are using their money to influence U.S. public officials, promote their climate agenda, and sponsor litigation against fossil fuel companies.

Green activists, megadonors, and the law firms pursuing litigation seem united in their mission to undermine the energy industry. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, look, Big Oil's the new Russia! Everything's their fault. Charming.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First up, here is the 1st paragraph in full of a new article:

Don't let Big Oil and dark money win

To the editor — Yup, our droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, and other climate effects intensified even faster than scientists predicted. Climate change deniers have retreated to “the climate has always been changing—humans aren’t causing it.” But in court, Chevron and other oil companies recently agreed with scientists—burning fossil fuels causes major, damaging climate change. Blame people using our products, not oil companies…

============================

Let's do this sentence by sentence...

Yup, our droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, and other climate effects intensified even faster than scientists predicted.

● Nope, just the opposite.  Most of the dire armageddon warnings by Al Gore a decade ago are simply untrue.

Climate change deniers have retreated to “the climate has always been changing—humans aren’t causing it.”

●  There is a difference between denial and scepticism.  And I haven't "retreated" to anything.  I maintain that the climate always changes over eons, and so far, I see no proof that humans are the primary cause.  Correlation does not equal causation.

But in court, Chevron and other oil companies recently agreed with scientists—burning fossil fuels causes major, damaging climate change.

● Really?  Please provide evidence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/26/2018 at 11:48 AM, Marina Schwarz said:

Oh, look, Big Oil's the new Russia! Everything's their fault. Charming.

Yep.  Big Oil is apparently Satan incarnate.  And presumably I'm Satan's helper because I'm a skeptic.

The oil and gas ban shows NZ as a true leader on the hardest issue of our times

The New Zealand government’s ban on offshore oil and gas exploration is leadership on climate change, plain and simple. For an issue so vast and fraught with difficulty and vested interests, the government’s approach is how New Zealand as a small nation can make the biggest difference globally. Here are five reasons why:

1.  The move correctly recognises who and what is responsible for causing climate change, namely, the fossil fuel industry. One hundred fossil fuel companies alone are responsible for 71% of emissions since 1988. This includes Shell, OMV and other oil & gas giants that have been operating in New Zealand.  The decisions made in the boardrooms of these companies have untold consequences for us all – not only have they caused the problem, but they have also actively created climate denial.

2. It’s not kidding people that the market, and consumer-choice can save the planet. The key determinant of whether we succeed at preventing more than 1.5°C of warming is if we can keep fossil fuels in the ground. The ban on offshore oil and gas does just that. It’s regulation, and it works. The next step will be implementing solutions that mean everyone has the choice to live sustainably, without the barrier of cost.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...how New Zealand as a small nation can make the biggest difference globally." Cute. Are they going to close all their petrol stations now and stop using all oil-derived products?

(All hail Demon Tom! All hail Demon Tom!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Marina Schwarz said:

"...how New Zealand as a small nation can make the biggest difference globally." Cute. Are they going to close all their petrol stations now and stop using all oil-derived products?

(All hail Demon Tom! All hail Demon Tom!)

Heh heh thanks Marina.  I would post the song Head Like A Hole by Nine Inch Nails but it would undoubtedly annoy some lurkers.

Anyway, about New Zealand...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2018 at 5:48 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

New York Attorney General ran straight past full stupidity and went straight to potato.  The eventual backlash should be spectacular.

So as I understand it, Exxon and every other fuel company are supposed to grease up their magic balls and guess at what is going to happen in the future with global warming costs. So if the government decides tomorrow to throw a 50% tax on all carbon releasing fuels then the attorney generals get to go back and say that the oil companies should have seen this coming? Doesn't make any sense to me. They are starting a lawsuit against one of the biggest oil companies in the US and they are claiming that Exxon isn't predicting the future properly? I think the Attorney General of New York State is looking for a way to give himself points for a possible future campaign? I think if the attorney generals get any dumber we will have to water them to keep them alive.....

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

So as I understand it, Exxon and every other fuel company are supposed to grease up their magic balls and guess at what is going to happen in the future with global warming costs. So if the government decides tomorrow to throw a 50% tax on all carbon releasing fuels then the attorney generals get to go back and say that the oil companies should have seen this coming? Doesn't make any sense to me. They are starting a lawsuit against one of the biggest oil companies in the US and they are claiming that Exxon isn't predicting the future properly? I think the Attorney General of New York State is looking for a way to give himself points for a possible future campaign? I think if the attorney generals get any dumber we will have to water them to keep them alive.....

Sounds to me like you understand the situation pretty well.  This law suit is designed to be a no-win situation imposed against ExxonMobil. 

And if New York is successful in this case, expect to see cookie cutter copy & paste law suits against all oil company majors, to eliminate those evil, rotten, nasty, horrible oil companies.  This really is a war. 

The Environmental extremists apparently want to keep oil in the ground, forever.  Horse and Buggy days to return, and everything will be right with the world again.  Rainbows and unicorns.

/ sarc off

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2018 at 6:11 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

This law suit is designed to be a no-win situation imposed against ExxonMobil. 

And if New York is successful in this case, expect to see cookie cutter copy & paste law suits against all oil company majors, to eliminate those evil, rotten, nasty, horrible oil companies.  This really is a war. 

The Environmental extremists apparently want to keep oil in the ground, forever

Another ongoing law suit.  Pay particular attention to the last paragraph below, it is the Environmental Extremist's end game revealed - forced discontinuation of all oil & gas, enforced by the courts.

Young People Are Suing the Trump Administration Over Climate Change. She’s Their Lawyer.

If all goes as planned, Ms. Olson will deliver her opening argument on Mondayin a landmark federal lawsuit against the Trump administration on behalf of 21 plaintiffs, ages 11 to 22, who are demanding that the government fight climate change. It is a case that could test whether the judicial branch has major role to play in dealing with global warming, and whether there is a constitutional right to a stable and safe climate.

... The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, is the most visible case for Ms. Olson and her nonprofit organization, Our Children’s Trust. The group is involved in similar legal actions in almost every state, and other climate suits around the world.

... Ms. Olson originally filed the federal suit in 2015 against the Obama administration, demanding faster action from a president already seen as friendly to environmental interests. Working under a legal principle known as the public trust doctrine, which can be used to compel the government to preserve natural resources for public use, the initial complaint stated that government officials had “willfully ignored” the dangers of burning fossil fuels.

The young plaintiffs have demanded, among other things, that the courts force the government to “implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions” in an effort to “stabilize the climate system.” The courts could then supervise the government’s efforts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Church of Scotland chiefs condemn North Sea oil giants

The Church of Scotland has sent an open letter to the chairmen of three oil companies, asking them to align their business plans with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Christian Aid Scotland and Eco Congregation Scotland joined the Church in calling on BP, Shell and Total to make the “radical changes” needed to keep global warming as far below 2°C as possible.

Richard Frazer, convener of Church and Society Council said: “Oil companies have a critical role in deciding whether or not global warming stays within targets set by the Paris agreement of 2015.”

Sally Foster Fulton, head of Christian Aid Scotland, added: “Right now, climate change is eroding life for the most vulnerable in our world and robbing our children of a future.”

Scientists claim that burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal causes carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, one of the principal causes of global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Church of Scotland chiefs condemn North Sea oil giants

The Church of Scotland has sent an open letter to the chairmen of three oil companies, asking them to align their business plans with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Christian Aid Scotland and Eco Congregation Scotland joined the Church in calling on BP, Shell and Total to make the “radical changes” needed to keep global warming as far below 2°C as possible.

Richard Frazer, convener of Church and Society Council said: “Oil companies have a critical role in deciding whether or not global warming stays within targets set by the Paris agreement of 2015.”

Sally Foster Fulton, head of Christian Aid Scotland, added: “Right now, climate change is eroding life for the most vulnerable in our world and robbing our children of a future.”

Scientists claim that burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal causes carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, one of the principal causes of global warming.

You gotta love it when the church's get involved.  Where's God in all this?  What is His purpose for oil?  Has He let the oil companies change His master plan?  Doesn't God control the thermostat?  Heaven forbid that evolution could be involved.  Ah, the questions could go on for........eternity, I suppose.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites