- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation
Collection
In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation
City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. Tillerson ↗
3:19-cv-20949D.N.J.1 entry
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
12/02/2019
Complaint
Complaint filed.
The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System filed a stockholder derivative complaint in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey against Exxon Mobil Corporation officers and board members seeking damages for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleged that Exxon had for decades “misled shareholders about the material risks climate change posed and poses to its business in order to increase its short-term profits and falsely inflate its assets, revenues, and stock price.”
In re Exxon Mobil Corp. Derivative Litigation ↗
3:19-cv-16380D.N.J.6 entries
Filing Date
Type
Action Taken
Document
Summary
09/15/2020
Decision
Motion to transfer granted.
In a consolidated stockholder derivative action against Exxon Mobil Corporation board members and executive officers (Exxon), the federal district court for the District of New Jersey granted Exxon’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Texas. The case involves allegations that the defendants misrepresented the costs of climate change regulations and did not appropriately project future costs of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. A related federal securities action and additional shareholder derivative actions are pending in the Northern District of Texas. The New Jersey federal court concluded that private and public interests weighed in favor of transfer.
05/26/2020
Reply
Reply memorandum of law filed in support of motion to transfer venue or, alternatively, to stay proceedings.
–
05/18/2020
Opposition
Opposition filed by plaintiffs to motion to transfer venue or, alternatively, to stay proceedings.
The plaintiffs opposed Exxon's motion to transfer venue, arguing that their derivative complaint was the only one to plead that demand for litigation was wrongfully refused and that they should not be penalized for allowing Exxon time to consider and respond to their litigation demands. They also argued that private (e.g., their forum preference) and public factors (New Jersey’s interest in litigation regarding a well-known company incorporated within its jurisdiction) weighed heavily against transfer. In addition, the plaintiffs argued that a stay was not warranted.
04/27/2020
Motion
Motion to transfer venue or, alternatively, to stay proceedings.
Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) moved to transfer a consolidated shareholder derivative action in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey to the Northern District of Texas, where a putative federal securities class action filed in 2016 and a consolidated federal derivative action filed in 2019 are pending. Exxon told the District of New Jersey that the cases in Texas 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 use of “proxy costs of carbon.” Exxon requested, in the alternative, that the District of New Jersey stay proceedings until the first-filed Texas suits were resolved.