Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, June 12, 2019

A judge blocked many of Exxon Mobil Corp.'s planned defenses in a New York state lawsuit accusing the energy giant of misleading investors about the potential impact of climate change on its finances.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Incarcerate their entire family of CEO's, administrators and engineers. All of them. Seize all assets, liquidate their accumulation and expend Exxon in fixing the disasters they cause.

All investors should be shamed. All dividends are payoff for the destruction of the planet.

#1 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-06-12 04:23 PM | Reply

Why is the state of New York suing Exxon on behalf of the investors?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right but I have seen shareholders sue the company they invested into and they've done it on their own accord....not through a state and it's attorney general.

I know this because I write management liability insurance which defends and pays on behalf of directors and officers of companies who can be sued for causing financial harm to a shareholder.

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2019-06-12 04:28 PM | Reply


@#2 ... Why is the state of New York suing Exxon on behalf of the investors?...

From the cited article:

... The state's claims stem from New York's powerful Martin Act, an almost century-old law that gives state prosecutors the power to probe investment frauds, Ponzi schemes and other forms of white-collar crime....


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-06-12 04:47 PM | Reply

This isn't a lawsuit about Climate Change, it's a lawsuit about 'proxy costs' on shares purchased.

"Central to the probe and the lawsuit are Exxon's use of so-called proxy costs for carbon to calculate the financial impact of future regulations. The costs are supposed to assure long-term investors including institutional shareholders and pension funds that they wouldn't be taken by surprise. New York says it was a ruse.

The attorney general claims Exxon discovered that if it actually applied the publicly represented proxy costs internally, it would result in "massive" costs, "large write-downs" and shorter asset lives."

Sounds like a type of insurance surcharge that hedges against potential regulations that might affect future profits.

But to the hysterical, all they hear is, "New York is suing Exxon for damage to the planet!!"

#4 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-12 06:14 PM | Reply

This isn't a lawsuit about Climate Change....
It's a lawsuit about 'proxy costs' on shares purchased because of Climate Change!

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 07:06 PM | Reply

"Sounds like a type of insurance surcharge that hedges against potential regulations that might affect future profits."

Poor Eberly's ears must be on fire.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-12 07:12 PM | Reply

This isn't a lawsuit about Climate Change, it's a lawsuit about 'proxy costs' on shares purchased.
"Central to the probe and the lawsuit are Exxon's use of so-called proxy costs for carbon to calculate the financial impact of future regulations. The costs are supposed to assure long-term investors including institutional shareholders and pension funds that they wouldn't be taken by surprise. New York says it was a ruse.
The attorney general claims Exxon discovered that if it actually applied the publicly represented proxy costs internally, it would result in "massive" costs, "large write-downs" and shorter asset lives."
Sounds like a type of insurance surcharge that hedges against potential regulations that might affect future profits.
But to the hysterical, all they hear is, "New York is suing Exxon for damage to the planet!!"
#4 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-06-12 06:14 PM

Guilty as charged. I hardly believe this suite is anything less than a profiteering motive, but I also believe all investors should divest immediately and hang their heads in shame. [insert laughter at my expense here]

#7 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-06-13 12:13 AM | Reply

Guilty as charged.
#7 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT

So is Henry Ford, Edison, the Vanderbuilts, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Kennedy,

and all of us. and we continue to pollute. every day. gas and oil are legal.

I filled up last Thursday.

#8 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-13 12:30 AM | Reply

"So is Henry Ford, Edison, the Vanderbuilts, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Kennedy"

Whew!
--Al Gore

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-06-13 12:42 AM | Reply

Guilty as charged.
#7 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT
So is Henry Ford, Edison, the Vanderbuilts, Andrew Carnegie, Joseph Kennedy,
and all of us. and we continue to pollute. every day. gas and oil are legal.
I filled up last Thursday.
#8 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-06-13 12:30 AM

Yes, absolutely they are guilty and so are you if you are invested in their industry, but I don't believe that you really comprehend my point.

When does a resource become a national asset and removed from private ownership?

Why should those creatures profiteer? This is the same with cellular phones, internet service and medical care. Privatized it's a monetization scheme, profiteering at the expense of everyone, and in the case of hydrocarbon extraction it decimates the planet in several ways. We don't even have the recipe for fracking fluid, it's kept entirely secret even as people, animals and lands are poisoned by it's commonplace use. Even as earthquakes increase and the water we all rely on is made unusable.

What was the issue with commercial aircraft recently? Oh, yes, "safety" features were optional at cost.

But stick it to me, if you must.

#10 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-06-13 12:58 AM | Reply

#10 I'm not sticking it to you. I'm saying it's a century in the making.

...and it continues on. The alternatives are currently a marginal Improvement.

We're on the cusp of a new, green frontier. But it's like we're in the 1840's building a railroad.

The future is STEAM!

#11 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-13 01:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1


@#4 ... This isn't a lawsuit about Climate Change, it's a lawsuit about 'proxy costs' on shares purchased. ...

Correct. It is about the misrepresentation of those carbon proxy costs, i.e., using differing private vs public costs when reporting to shareholders.

It boils down to Exxon apparently not wanting to inform its shareholders of its true carbon mitigation costs, so it told the shareholders one thing publicly while keeping the real, more accurate costs hidden from shareholders (and the public).

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-06-13 09:46 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort