The New York State Attorney General sued the ExxonMobil Oil Company (hereafter referred to as Exxon) in State Court on a securities fraud charge based on what it claimed was a misrepresentation of Exxon’s risk to investors because the NY AG thought the company didn’t correctly represent the dangers of climate change and the company’s liability for that change.
At the end of the trial the judge ruled that even with the lower standards of proof required for a securities fraud case, the AG had failed to prove that Exxon had broken any laws. In its defense, Exxon attorneys noted that the case was a concerted effort by the “anti-fossil” fuel advocates (supported by the New York AG) to destroy the reputation of the giant oil company.
That spurs this question. In this age of emotion where opinion seems to outweigh facts are we really concerned about the law?
We have politicians filling social media with outrage about Administration policies that reflect support for the current laws. These would be the same politicians who are in a position to change the law if they could focus on cooperation rather than attack. If we don’t like a law we used to change it. Take, for example, prohibition. We were all up in arms about the devil’s brew and so condemned the production and consumption of it by changing our Constitution. It didn’t take but a few years to realize that was a pretty stupid idea so we undid the change.
It doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. It is much easier to appeal to the mob, so at what point do we just abandon the law and revert back to the way life was before we had laws?
No comments:
Post a Comment