Skip to main content

Exxon Mobil Corp. won a major victory in a closely watched lawsuit on Tuesday when a judge ruled that the company did not defraud investors out of up to US$1.6-billion by hiding the true cost of climate-change regulation.

The ruling by Justice Barry Ostrager in Manhattan Supreme Court followed a trial featuring testimony from investors, experts and former Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson.

The judge found that the New York State Attorney-General’s case failed to produce evidence that investors were misled. It was the first of several climate-change lawsuits against major oil companies to go to trial.

Story continues below advertisement

Attorney-General Letitia James said in a statement that her office “will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans.” She did not say whether she would appeal.

Exxon said that the ruling affirmed the company’s position that the investigation was “baseless.”

“We provided our investors with accurate information on the risks of climate change,” spokesman Casey Norton said in a statement.

The state’s 2018 lawsuit said Exxon Mobil caused investors to lose up to US$1.6-billion by falsely telling them it had properly evaluated the impact of future climate regulations on its business.

It said Exxon told investors it was projecting the impact of future regulations by using a “proxy cost” of up to US$80 a tonne of carbon emissions in wealthy countries by 2040, but internally used figures as low as US$40 a tonne or none at all.

Exxon countered that the proxy cost and the internal greenhouse gas costs were distinct and used for different purposes.

Justice Ostrager’s decision said the evidence supported the company’s argument that the two types of projected costs were “different metrics.”

Story continues below advertisement

“What the evidence at trial revealed is that Exxon Mobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible,” the judge wrote.

In October, as the New York trial was getting under way, Massachusetts announced its own lawsuit against Exxon, including allegations about proxy costs similar to those Justice Ostrager rejected. Unlike New York’s lawsuit, Massachusetts accuses Exxon of misleading consumers, not just investors.

Cities and counties across the United States have also sued Exxon and other oil companies seeking funds to pay for seawalls and other infrastructure to guard against rising sea levels caused by climate change. The companies have denied liability.

Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies