Held v. State of Montana
On March 13, 2020, 16 young
people filed a lawsuit asserting climate change-based claims under the
Montana constitution against the State of Montana, Montana’s governor,
and various state agencies. The plaintiffs claim that Montana is
violating their constitutional rights to a “clean and healthful
environment; to seek safety, health, and happiness; and to individual
dignity and equal protection of the law.” The case specifically
questions the constitutionality of Montana’s fossil fuel-based State
Energy Policy and the “Climate Change Exception” in the Montana
Environmental Policy Act.
In a historic judgement on August 4,
2021, Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that the case could proceed to trial.
Schedule to begin on June 12, 2023, this will be the first ever
youth-led climate trial in U.S. history.
Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corp.
On
September 14, 2020, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong brought a
lawsuit against ExxonMobil claiming the company had misled consumers
and investors about the risks of climate change and their role in
contributing to it. The suit alleges that ExxonMobil has violated the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in unfair and
deceptive practices related to climate change, specifically, that the
company knowingly misled consumers and investors by downplaying the
risks of climate change and failing to disclose its own internal
knowledge about the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions. Connecticut’s
complaint lists a “myriad [of] negative consequences” to which Exxon has
allegedly contributed including sea level rise, flooding, drought,
increases in extreme temperatures and severe storms, and decreases in
air quality, among others.
Connecticut’s lawsuit includes eight
counts under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and is seeking
“injunctive and equitable relief; civil penalties; restitution for State
expenditures attributable to Exxon to respond to the effects of climate
change; disgorgement of revenues, profits, and gains; disclosure of
research and studies on climate change; and funding of a corrective
education campaign.”
The lawsuit draws substantially on the
defendants’ own internal memos which the state alleges clearly
demonstrate the companies’ awareness of the connection between fossil
fuel consumption and climate change, and the impacts of climate change
to our environment, economy, and public health. The lawsuit then
contrasts these internal memos with public messages from the companies
which the state claims to be “deceptive” and “misleading”.
This
case has proceeded in a manner similar to many other climate litigation
cases where a battle over jurisdiction has been the principal issue.
Following Connecticut Federal Court’s 2021 ruling to remand the lawsuit
to state court, the defendants filed an appeal with the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals. Connecticut has since filed several supplemental
authority letters citing decisions by the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth,
and Tenth Circuit Courts all of which ruled to remand similar climate
change cases to state court. The Second Circuit Court is yet to rule on
this case.
City & County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP
In
March 2020, the City and County of Honolulu filed a suit alleging that
the actions of fossil fuel companies directly and proximately caused “a
substantial portion of the climate crisis-related impacts in the City”
including sea level rise, extreme weather, ocean warming and
acidification, and “the cascading social, economic, and other
consequences of those environmental changes.” The alleged wrongful
conduct also included “concealing the dangers of, promoting false and
misleading information about, and engaging in massive campaigns to
promote increasing use of their fossil fuel products.” Honolulu asserted
claims of public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability for
failure to warn, and trespass. The City is seeking compensatory damages
and other forms of relief.
After being subject to the typical
battle over jurisdiction, this case is currently awaiting a ruling from
the Supreme Court on the question of “whether a federal district court
has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-laws
seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of
transboundary greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate, on the
ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such
claims.” The question is essentially the same as the question presented
in several other climate cases for which certiorari petitions are
currently pending.
The appeal filed before the Supreme Court
could have a significant impact on the proceedings in Hawaii. The oil
companies are hoping to upend a series of circuit court decisions
remanding the cases to state courts where they were filed. If the high
court takes the appeal and rules for the oil companies, the precedent
would be established for climate change cases to be litigated in federal
court. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case later this
year.
California v. Trump
As of 2021, the
state of California had filed 110 lawsuits against the Trump
administration over its environmental laws, immigration policies and
other regulations and rollbacks. The attorney general’s office has won
23 cases and lost 5 while the remaining 82 are pending or on hold.
The
content of the various lawsuits addresses policies from the EPA and
Department of the Interior, and each complaint was filed in federal
court. California is also one of eleven states vowing to uphold the
policies set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump
formally withdrew from in June 2017.
In April 2019, California
joined Oregon and Minnesota in a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s
Executive Order 13771 on “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs.” The states allege that Trump’s executive order has caused a
failure to finalize regulations proposed during the Obama
Administration. These regulations intended to address energy
conservation and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The states’
complaint also included allegations of climate change-related impacts
and lack of nationwide solutions to greenhouse gas emissions. The
lawsuit rests on the claims for violations of the separation of powers
doctrine, the Take Care Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The basis of these claims is an assertion that the president breached
his duty of exercising due care while executing laws and that
administrative agencies acted outside the scope of their authority. The
states make the case that the order delayed the implementation of
important standards and regulations, resulting in further climate change
injuries.
In 2020, the States’ challenge to the executive order
was dismissed by the federal district court for the District of
Columbia, concluding that the evidence did not prove that the executive
order caused the delay in regulatory actions contributing to injuries
from climate change. Despite the ruling and subsequent dismissal of the
case, the court did assert that the delay in standard finalization did
contribute to climate change and injuries the states had suffered on the
basis of climate change.
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp.
Beginning
in July 2017, six California municipalities filed separate lawsuits in
state court against several major oil companies including Chevron, BP,
Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips. The suits allege
damages based on claims for public nuisance and seek to hold the oil
industry accountable for climate impacts affecting the State of
California, including extreme heat and sea level rise. The lawsuits also
allege that the companies concealed the climate hazards associated with
the production and use of their products.
Defendant companies
removed the case to federal district court on the claim that they are
entitled to removal under the “federal officer removal” statute. Federal
officer removal is a doctrine for removing certain cases from state to
federal court and is available to federal officers or persons acting
under them. This includes corporations. The defendants allege that
certain contracts they have with the federal government required them to
take some of the actions for which they are now being sued. The
district court held that the defendant companies alleged improper
grounds for federal removal jurisdiction and remanded the case back to
state court. Defendant companies reasserted federal officer removal and
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The
Ninth Circuit granted a request to put all current cases against the
fossil fuel companies in front of one judicial panel in December 2019.
In May of 2020, the Ninth Circuit court presented the opinion that
rejected the oil companies' argument that they were acting under a
federal officer, dismissing the appeal of the defendant companies. This
decision impacts the precedent for “federal officer removal” statute,
underscoring the ability of climate change cases to be heard in state
courts.
At the end of 2020, the fossil fuel companies were
granted a motion to stay the mandate in order to file a petition for
writ of ¬certiorari in the Supreme Court. In 2021, the defendants were
granted another chance to argue for removal to federal court based on
the Supreme Court ruling in a similar case filed by the city of
Baltimore.
In April of 2022, the Ninth Circuit court affirmed,
for a second time, a district order remanding to state court climate
lawsuits brought by California local governments against fossil fuel
companies. In the 2020 ruling where the Ninth Circuit initially affirmed
the remand order, it only reviewed the legitimacy of removal under the
federal-officer removal statute. In this second decision, the Ninth
Circuit reviewed the defendant companies’ other arguments and rejected
“broad interpretations of removal jurisdiction” even in a case where the
plaintiffs “raise novel and sweeping causes of action.”
Currently,
this case is waiting on a ruling from the Supreme Court similar to
Honolulu v. Sunoco LP. The fossil fuel companies once again petitioned
the Ninth Circuit court for a stay of mandate and filed a writ of
certiorari seeking the Supreme Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s
decision. The stay of mandate was granted, and the Supreme Court is yet
to provide a ruling on this case.
City of Oakland v. BP
In
September 2017, attorneys for the cities of Oakland and San Francisco
filed separate public nuisance lawsuits, on behalf of the People of the
State of California, against five of the world’s largest producers of
fossil fuels. The defendant companies are British Petroleum, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell.
The suits
asked that the courts hold the companies responsible for the costs of
sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect California’s
citizens from the ongoing consequences of climate change and sea level
rise that will directly impact Californian coastal communities. The
lawsuits state that these costs are the direct consequences of: the
defendants’ wrongful promotion of their products, deliberate concealment
of their knowledge of the direct link between fossil fuels and climate
change, and campaigns to discredit evidence supporting said link.
The
defendant companies had the case removed from state to federal district
court, where a federal judge granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. San
Francisco and Oakland appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where
the two cities have maintained that their claims are covered under
California’s public nuisance laws and should remain in state court.
In
May 2020, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. Judge Ikuta held that
the Cities’ claims failed to implicate federal law based on various
jurisdictional criteria that were not met. As a result, the court
remanded the cases to the district court to determine if there were any
other grounds for removal to federal court. The fossil fuel companies
filed a writ of certiorari seeking the review of the Ninth Circuit’s
decision which was ultimately denied by the Supreme Court in June of
2021.
In October of 2022, the federal district court for the
Northern District of California rejected the defendants’ remaining
grounds for removal to federal court and concluded that Ninth Circuit
precedent dictates the remand of Oakland and San Francisco climate cases
to state court.
City of New York v. BP
In
January 2018, attorneys for the City of New York filed a complaint in
federal court against five major petroleum companies. The complaint made
claims for public and private nuisance and for trespass. The city is
requesting unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In addition, the
city is seeking damages from the oil companies to pay for infrastructure
improvements needed to protect the city’s 8.5 million residents from
climate change impacts.
U.S. District Judge John Keenan dismissed
the complaint in July of 2018. Judge Keenan said that the federal Clean
Air Act takes legal precedence over emissions and trumps New York State
law. He also ruled that the executive and legislative branches, not the
courts, are the proper forum to address climate change impacts. The
City of New York immediately filed an appeal with the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals to reverse the dismissal. In April 2021, the Second
Circuit upheld the dismissal, concurring that federal common law
displaced the City’s state-law public nuisance, private nuisance and
trespass claims based in part on the view that state law claims “would
further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between
the prevention of global warming, a project that requires national
standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy
production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security on
the other.”
Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.)
On
April 17, 2018, Colorado communities of Boulder County, San Miguel, and
the City of Boulder filed a lawsuit against Suncor and ExxonMobil,
alleging common-law public nuisance claims, as well as violations of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit alleges that the two oil
companies are the most significant contributors to climate change and
demands that they pay for costs associated with climate change impacts
so that these costs do not “fall disproportionately on taxpayers.” The
suit states that Colorado is one of the fastest warming states in the
U.S. and is already experiencing trends in rising heat index, drought,
and more frequent wildfires.
The complaint asserts that
defendant companies have known about the risk of climate change impacts
for over fifty years and failed to inform the public of that risk. It is
deducted that the localities included Suncor in their claim against
Exxon because Suncor U.S.A.’s corporate headquarters are in Colorado.
Plaintiffs intended to eliminate federal diversity jurisdiction and
limit the defendant companies’ ability to argue that the suit should be
heard in federal rather than state court. Despite this attempt, a
jurisdictional battle was waged.
The fight over jurisdiction
began when, three weeks after the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
include civil conspiracy claims, the defendants filed for removal to
federal court. Defendant companies asserted that the claims could only
arise under federal common law due to the “uniquely federal interests”
at stake, including energy, environmental, and national security policy.
Additional grounds for removal include the preemption of Colorado law
by the federal Clean Air Act. In retaliation, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action back to state court, arguing that their
claims arose under only Colorado state law. On September 5, 2019, the
motion to remand was granted by a federal judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado.
At the end of 2021, the
Supreme Court granted Suncor’s writ for certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for further consideration in
light of BP v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The appeals court
ultimately affirmed the district court's ruling and dismissed the
appeal. On March 2, 2022, the Tenth Circuit Appeals Court issued a
mandate transferring jurisdiction back to the lower court.
In
June 2022, the fossil fuel companies filed yet another petition for writ
of certiorari seeking the Supreme Court’s review of the Tenth Circuit’s
decision affirming the remand to state court. Following the writ of
certiorari, several amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of
petitioners by various states, trade associations, and others. Most
recently, the Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a
brief expressing the views of the United States on the petition for writ
of certiorari filed by fossil fuel companies.
King County v. BP
On
May 9, 2018, King County, Washington filed a lawsuit against the five
largest oil companies: BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and
ConocoPhillips. The lawsuit seeks to hold the companies responsible for
making major contributions to overall climate disruptions. The complaint
seeks an order requiring the companies to pay into an abatement fund
for the costs of adapting infrastructure to address climate change
risks. These include costs for stormwater management, salmon recovery,
floods, landslides, and ocean acidification. The complaint asserts that
the companies have directly contributed to rising sea levels which have
caused regular flooding in areas once above the high tide line.
Lawyers
brought the suit in King County Superior Court. A federal judge granted
defendant companies’ motion for removal to federal court and rejected
King County’s motion to move the case back to state court. The same
attorneys that represent King County are representing San Francisco and
Oakland County in a separate, but materially identical lawsuit. A U.S.
District Judge granted motion to stay proceedings brought by the county,
pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on City of
Oakland v. BP.
Following the Supreme Court's denial of the
petition for writ of certiorari in the City of Oakland v. BP, the
parties informed the court they had been discussing next steps and
requested a continuation of the stay. Proceedings remained stayed until
July 2021 when the court granted the parties’ stipulated motion
regarding deadlines for when the defendants would have to file a motion
to dismiss. Ultimately, on September 28, 2021, King County filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of its climate change lawsuit against the
defendants.
Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co.
On
July 2, 2018, Rhode Island became the first state to bring suit against
the oil industry. When announcing the lawsuit, then Rhode Island
Attorney General Peter Kilmartin said, “For a very long time, there has
been this perception that ‘Big Oil’ was too big to take on, but here we
are- the smallest state- taking on some of the biggest corporate
polluters in the world.” The lawsuit was filed in Providence County
Superior Court and named Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips,
and Chevron as defendants.
In the initial complaint, defendant
companies are accused of contributing to climate change that is damaging
infrastructure and coastal communities in the state. The public
nuisance suit is seeking to force the defendant companies to pay
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages associated with climate
change. As a state with over 400 miles of open coastline, it also
alleges that the companies violated Rhode Island’s Environmental Rights
Act by polluting and destroying its resources.
Another
jurisdictional battle took place when defendant companies removed the
case to federal court. Following removal, Rhode Island filed a motion to
remand to state court. Defendants argued that federal jurisdiction
existed over climate litigation cases, as evidenced by the stream of
previous climate cases that failed in federal court under the Clean Air
Act. But Rhode Island argued that the nature of their complaint is about
tortious misrepresentation and failure to warn- claims that tend to be
governed by state law. On July 22, 2019, the state’s motion to remand
was granted, but the federal district court stayed the remand order for
60 days. The court denied motion to stay remand order pending an appeal
and directed that the remand order not be entered until October 10,
2019.
In 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
case to state court, after rejecting the fossil fuel companies’
arguments that the claims were governed by federal law. The First
Circuit had already remanded the case in 2020, but the Supreme Court
ordered it to review the previous ruling after the high court gave the
companies another opportunity to argue for removal in a similar case by
the city of Baltimore. Following the 2022 remand order, defendant
companies filed another writ for certiorari seeking the Supreme Court’s
review of the First Court’s affirmation of the remand of Rhode Island’s
case to state court. As of January 2023, two amicus briefs were filed in
support of fossil fuel companies’ petition for writ of certiorari. The
Supreme Court is yet to rule on this case.
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP
In
July 2018, the city of Baltimore joined other localities in filing a
string of lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry. The complaint filed
named 26 oil and gas companies and is seeking unspecified damages,
penalties, and relief under Maryland state trespass law and the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act. It says that the city of Baltimore has been
adversely impacted by the sea level rise attributed to climate change.
It argues that these impacts have caused “property damage, economic
injuries, and impacts to public health.” The complaint alleges that the
industry identified a link between climate change and fossil fuel
production. It also alleges that fossil fuel producers then spent the
better half of 50 years working to hide the dangers of climate change to
protect the industry rather than mitigate the damages.
A Shell
spokesman responded to the lawsuit with the statement that, “We believe
climate change is a complex societal challenge that should be addressed
through sound government policy and cultural change…not by the courts.” A
jurisdictional battle was waged when defendant companies removed the
case to federal court.
After several years spent arguing over
the procedural issue of removal, in 2022 the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals held, for the second time, that the City of Baltimore’s lawsuit
should proceed in state court. The Supreme Court vacated the Fourth
Circuit’s initial remand decision based on the high court’s assertion
that federal appellate courts are required to consider all grounds for
removal when federal-officer removal is one of the asserted grounds.
Following this ruling, the Fourth Circuit maintained its rejection of
federal-officer removal as a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in
this case and rejected the seven other grounds on which defendant
companies were seeking removal.
The fossil fuel companies filed
another petition for writ of certiorari in October 2022. The petition
presents two questions: “(1) Whether federal common law necessarily and
exclusively governs claims seeking to redress for injuries allegedly
caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the
global climate; and (2) Whether a federal district court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 over claims necessarily and
exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under
state law.” These questions are the same as the ones presented in the
pending petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Tenth
Circuit’s affirmation of the remand order in Colorado local governments’
climate case.
People of the State of New York v. ExxonMobil
In
October 2018, Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a fraud lawsuit
against ExxonMobil in New York state court. It accused the company of
misleading Exxon investors on how future regulations could impact its
business. The lawsuit comes on the heels of a three-year investigation
into the company’s public disclosures. Investigations revealed that
Exxon executives kept two sets of books that accounted for potential
costs of greenhouse gas regulations; one set was made public while the
other was used for internal calculations.
The investigation
“uncovered significant evidence of potentially materially false
misleading statements by Exxon about its application of a proxy cost of
greenhouse gas emissions to its investment and impairment decisions.”
The company was facing both civil and criminal penalties under the
Martin Act: one of New York’s toughest anti-fraud statutes. Exxon was
also facing a similar probe by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura
Healey. Exxon sued Maura Healey in both state and federal courts, with
courts upholding the AG’s authority to investigate.
The trial
began on October 22, 2019. At the time, it was only the second climate
change lawsuit to reach trial in the U.S. After a twelve-day trial, the
court ultimately ruled in favor of Exxon. The New York court found that
the New York Office of the Attorney General “failed to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence” that ExxonMobil made any material
misstatements or omissions that misled any reasonable investor about its
practices or procedures for accounting for climate risk.
In
his decision, Judge Barry Ostrager took care to emphasize that this
verdict did not deal with the issue of Exxon’s possible contribution to
climate change. “Nothing in this opinion is intended to absolve Exxon
Mobil from responsibility for contributing to climate change in the
production of its fossil fuel products,” he wrote. “But Exxon Mobil is
in the business of producing energy, and this is a securities fraud
case, not a climate change case.”
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Chevron
On
November 14, 2018, fishermen in California and Oregon filed suit
against 30 companies and oil producers in Superior Court of San
Francisco County. The complaint contends that the fossil fuel industry
is at direct fault for global warming related damages that have
negatively impacted the West Coast’s Dungeness crab fishery. The
complaint contains five causes of action: nuisance, strict liability for
failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, negligence, and
negligent failure to warn.
The lawsuit serves as the first-time
food producers have sued the fossil fuel industry with allegations of
harm to the industry. The Association alleges that the conduct of the
oil companies has resulted in direct financial losses and strain to the
$445 million fishing industry. In fact, in 2018, fishermen were
allocated $15 million of $200 million in federal disaster relief funds
after a delayed and disappointing fishing season. The complaint asserts
that tax dollars should not be funding damages resulting from warming
oceans created by the fossil fuel industry. Attorneys for the oil
company have deemed the suit “without merit and counterproductive to
real solutions on climate change.”
Reports from the Northeast
have also determined that climate impacts are directly related to the
decline of species that support the most iconic fisheries in the
country. These species include Atlantic cod, Atlantic sea scallops, and
American lobster. This lawsuit is the first signal that the food
industry will be one of the major leaders in climate change litigation.
In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation
In
August 2019, a federal judge of the US District Court for the Northern
District of Texas consolidated two derivative lawsuits against
ExxonMobil into a single action. The two shareholder complaints,
formerly Von Colditz v. Woods and Montini v. Woods, accuse Exxon
officials of lying to investors and misleading the public about the
risks of climate change. The lawsuit names both current and former Exxon
executives including current CEO Darren Woods and his predecessor and
Former Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.
The shareholders
accused Exxon officials of violating federal securities law, breaching
fiduciary duties, and wasting corporate assets. Shareholders further
alleged that the officials failed to protect their investments,
misreported on the risks of climate change, failed to disclose that its
Canadian oil sands were operating at a loss, and failed to disclose that
carbon proxy costs were not used to calculate operating costs.
The
most recent action in this case occurred in September 2021 when Exxon
filed a motion to dismiss arguing that “the independent directors on
ExxonMobil’s board of directors unanimously decided in good faith, based
on a reasonable inquiry, that this shareholder derivative lawsuit is
not in ExxonMobil’s best interests.” Exxon also argued that the
plaintiffs’ core allegations were reliant on “discredited” theories put
forth in an action filed by the Massachusetts Attorney General in
October 2019 and New York Attorney General’s fraud action against Exxon
Mobil which had been dismissed by New York State Court.
In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation
On
August 6, 2019, a group of Exxon shareholders filed a derivative
lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation directors and officials. The
complaint was filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey. Those named
include CEO and Chairman of the Board Darren Woods, Former Chief
Executive Rex Tillerson, Principal Financial Officer and SVP Andrew
Singer, and other members of Exxon’s auditing committee. Demanding a
jury trial, the shareholders sued Exxon and its officers for “breach of
fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the federal securities laws.”
Saratoga alleges that
the officers “knew, were reckless, or were grossly negligent in not
knowing” that Exxon was misleading its investors regarding the risks of
climate change to its business. They also allege that the officials
received excessive compensation and benefits while the company failed to
accurately value its reserves. This claim regards an investigation by
the New York State Attorney General into how Exxon reported its climate
change risk. The investigation found that Exxon kept two separate books
for accounting for potential costs of greenhouse gas regulations. One
was made public and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), while the other was kept for internal accounting purposes.
The
complaint included the allegation that members of Exxon’s auditing
committee “completely and utterly failed in their duty of oversight and
failed in their duty” to review and correct the company’s accounting
disclosures. The complaint also asserted that the defendants’ actions
“irreparably damaged Exxon’s corporate image and goodwill.”
In
April 2020, Exxon filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern
District of Texas where two other pending cases, a putative federal
securities class action suit and a consolidated federal derivative
action, raised “substantially the same allegations and same causes of
action against the same defendants,” including allegations that Exxon
officers made misleading statements about Exxon’s “proxy costs of
carbon.” The motion to transfer was ultimately granted by the New Jersey
Federal Court.