Exxon’s big court win exposes major malpractice in the New York Attorney General’s Office

By Post Editorial Board

December 14, 2019 | 11:24pm

Enlarge Image

AFP via Getty Images

Exxon’s win Tuesday against New York state’s climate-change lawsuit couldn’t have been more complete: Not only did the judge find the Attorney General’s Office failed to prove fraud, he also blasted the case as “hyperbolic” — and praised Exxon.

State Supreme Court Judge Barry Ostrager said the state’s lawyers failed to show the company ever “made any material misstatements or omissions” that could mislead any “reasonable” observer.

The AG’s Office had claimed Exxon defrauded investors in violation of the Martin Act and other laws. But Ostrager flagged the “politically motivated statements by former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,” who launched the Exxon probe — which show that the litigation was political from the start.

And to the finish, as the state couldn’t remotely back up its claims that Exxon waged a “longstanding fraudulent scheme” sanctioned “at the highest levels.” In reality, Ostrager wrote, the evidence “revealed that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible.”

Schneiderman cynically launched a fishing expedition just to snag headlines and suck up to green extremists. But his successors let the witch hunt continue — so Attorney General Tish James and former AG Barbara Underwood deserve their share of Ostrager’s contempt.

Over years of “investigation,” the AG’s Office repeatedly shifted its theory of just what Exxon had done wrong, as evidence disproved its accusations to be false. The lawyers eventually went to court with a case essentially the same as one in which the Securities and Exchange Commission had already cleared Exxon.

Even then, they wound up dropping two key charges just before the trial ended — after forcing the company to spend millions, and disclose considerable proprietary information, in its defense.

Even under the AG-friendly Martin Act, the state’s attorneys failed to show that Exxon had deceived anyone, or tried to: There was zero reason for investors to care about the internal estimates in question. Too bad Exxon can’t sue Schneiderman and his successors for the damage inflicted by their outrageous abuse of power.

Too bad Exxon can’t sue Schneiderman and his successors for the damage inflicted by their outrageous abuse of power.