SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New York’s Attorney General failed to prove that Exxon mislead shareholders over the true cost of climate change, a judge ruled Tuesday, ending the oil giant’s multiyear battle against the state.
“The Office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Judge Barry Ostrager of the trial-level state Supreme Court wrote in his ruling.
[...]
The case was dismissed “with prejudice,” which means that “this case cannot be tried again on these facts in New York,” Columbia University Law Professor John Coffee said. He added that it could go to New York State Appellate Court and a federal case would be “very unlikely” and “ill-fated.”
What was particularly pernicious about the original case was that it happened merely because Exxon had some researchers look into the matter decades ago. There was no illegal or fraudulent activity in the first place. It didn't matter to the plaintiff, the Office of the Attorney General of New York that the research in question was inconclusive.
This is not the first time that merely looking for problems from a business's activities or products generates liability. But it would establish a precedent that the act of merely looking, even if one doesn't find anything, creates liability.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday December 12 2019, @12:00AM (2 children)
If it had been about "Exxon's liabilities for the damage they caused", it would have been dismissed even earlier. You have to show the damages first and have standing to make the law suit.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by DeathMonkey on Friday December 13 2019, @06:38PM (1 child)
If that were true, all these other lawsuits would have been dismissed before this one. [grist.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday December 14 2019, @04:26AM
So two lawsuits filed in 2018. Why would they be dismissed before a lawsuit filed in 2015?