As expected, the lawsuit against ExxonMobil ended in a bitter defeat for the state of New York, which sued the multinational, accused of underestimating in its accounts the cost of global warming. On Tuesday, December 10, New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager declared the major oil not guilty. In his 55-page decision, the judge noted that "The prosecutor's office failed to prove that ExxonMobil had made inaccurate substantive statements or omissions about its practices and procedures that would have misled a reasonable investor", writes the judge, adding that "Nothing in this judgment is intended to exempt ExxonMobil from its responsibility as a contributor to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases in the production of its fossil fuels."
The last day of the trial, on November 7, had experienced a dramatic rebound with the retreat in the open field of the Vice-Prosecutor of New York. Jonathan Zweig had revealed, as if nothing had happened, that he was giving up three out of four indictments against the oil and gas group: that the company had deliberately and knowingly misled investors about the real cost of the business of warming; that investors had been misled by buying shares on the basis of this false information; that there had been deception in civil law.
"A cruel farce"
The only remaining charge was a New York-specific law, the Martin Act, which does not require proof of fraudulent intent or that investors have been deceived. Exxon's lawyer, Theodore Wells, was appalled, accusing the prosecution of "Harassed" the company for years. "It's a cruel farce, because the reputation of many people very well has been affected by this lawsuit"Wells protested.
During the hearings, the debates had largely turned to the advantage of the multinational, especially when Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State of Donald Trump until March 2018, CEO of the group from 2006 to 2016, intervened as a witness . Open, on October 23, in New York, the lawsuit was intended to be the counterpart of the lawsuits against the multinationals of the tobacco. Exxon was criticized for flouting investors by underestimating the cost that the company would have to bear as a result of the foreseeable tightening of legislation to combat greenhouse gas emissions. This misleading presentation would have led to overvaluing the group's actions and favoring its financing, to the detriment of companies engaged in the energy transition.
Lawsuits in Texas, New Jersey and Massachusetts
In concrete terms, the New York Public Prosecutor's Office accused the group of having used two different ways to estimate the cost of emissions: one for its annual report and the other for field projects. Rex Tillerson recognized this, explaining that these tools correspond to different levels of calculation, one macroeconomic, valuing the ton of C02 at 80 dollars (72 euros) in 2040, the other microeconomic, 40 dollars only, which encourages investment. Very quickly, it appeared that the trial was bogged down, the judge reproaching the prosecutor for "Torturing" the witnesses by constantly repeating his questions.
Not surprisingly, the Wall Street Journal denounced a "Parody of climate lawsuits", noting that no shareholder complained, that the PwC Group auditor was unaware of any manipulation attempt. In August, the Security Exchange Commission, the gendarme of the American Stock Exchange, had dismissed an investigation of more than two years. The case is probably not over. The company is also pursued by the states of Texas, New Jersey and Massachusetts.
