Acting on allegations that Exxon Mobil had lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business, the New York attorney general has begun an investigation of the company activities.
A subpoena was issued to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents, by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, said sources with knowledge of the investigation.
The investigations would focus on whether the company that had briefed the investors through statements about climate risks were in line with the company’s own long-running scientific research.
The investigations were likely to include statements issued by the company within the last decade when Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives.
The company spokesperson confirmed the receiving of the subpoena and was still deciding how to respond.
“We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate change research,” Kenneth P. Cohen, vice president for public affairs at Exxon Mobil said.
He added that the company had disclosed climate risks to investors apart from funding mainstream climate science since the 1970s and publishing dozens of scientific papers on the topic.
Sources also said that the Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, had been under investigation by the attorney general for two years over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. However the investigation has not resulted in any charges or other legal action against Peabody.
“Peabody continues to work with the New York attorney general’s office regarding our disclosures, which have evolved over the years,” Vic Svec, a Peabody senior vice president said in a statement.
According to the people with knowledge of the case, other oil companies might be included in the inquiry with the expansion of the Exxon inquiry even though no additional subpoenas have been issued to date.
The Martin Act, a New York state law, confers on the attorney general broad powers to investigate financial fraud.
While most have been pursued by private plaintiffs, to date, lawsuits trying to hold fuel companies accountable for damage they are causing to the climate have failed in the courts.
Sources said that to bring in far greater investigative and legal resources to bear on the issue, attorneys general for other states could join in Mr. Schneiderman’s efforts. In lawsuits that could remind one of those against the tobacco companies in recent decades which cost those companies tens of billions of dollars in penalties, some experts see the potential for a legal assault on fossil fuel companies to result in similar end.
“This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general. In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Climate risks for oil companies are normally thought to include, among other things, a crackdown by governments on carbon emissions that might hurt oil sales.
(Source:www.reuters.com & www.nytimes.com)
A subpoena was issued to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents, by Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, said sources with knowledge of the investigation.
The investigations would focus on whether the company that had briefed the investors through statements about climate risks were in line with the company’s own long-running scientific research.
The investigations were likely to include statements issued by the company within the last decade when Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives.
The company spokesperson confirmed the receiving of the subpoena and was still deciding how to respond.
“We unequivocally reject the allegations that Exxon Mobil has suppressed climate change research,” Kenneth P. Cohen, vice president for public affairs at Exxon Mobil said.
He added that the company had disclosed climate risks to investors apart from funding mainstream climate science since the 1970s and publishing dozens of scientific papers on the topic.
Sources also said that the Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, had been under investigation by the attorney general for two years over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. However the investigation has not resulted in any charges or other legal action against Peabody.
“Peabody continues to work with the New York attorney general’s office regarding our disclosures, which have evolved over the years,” Vic Svec, a Peabody senior vice president said in a statement.
According to the people with knowledge of the case, other oil companies might be included in the inquiry with the expansion of the Exxon inquiry even though no additional subpoenas have been issued to date.
The Martin Act, a New York state law, confers on the attorney general broad powers to investigate financial fraud.
While most have been pursued by private plaintiffs, to date, lawsuits trying to hold fuel companies accountable for damage they are causing to the climate have failed in the courts.
Sources said that to bring in far greater investigative and legal resources to bear on the issue, attorneys general for other states could join in Mr. Schneiderman’s efforts. In lawsuits that could remind one of those against the tobacco companies in recent decades which cost those companies tens of billions of dollars in penalties, some experts see the potential for a legal assault on fossil fuel companies to result in similar end.
“This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general. In some ways, the theory is similar — that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don’t know yet,” said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Climate risks for oil companies are normally thought to include, among other things, a crackdown by governments on carbon emissions that might hurt oil sales.
(Source:www.reuters.com & www.nytimes.com)