[SteveinSATX]

Maybe I’m asking the wrong question but doesn’t GW have to be at least codified into law just to give prosecutorial legal standing?

[justlurking]

Maybe I’m asking the wrong question but doesn’t GW have to be at least codified into law just to give prosecutorial legal standing?

Under Sarbanes-Oxley, or "SOx", a public company can be prosecuted by not anticipating future risks and reporting them to investors.

However, that's federal law. New York may have a different or even more stringent interpretation. If so, I don't know why any company actually does business there, unless the return outweighs the risk.

[Milton Miteybad]

Maybe I’m asking the wrong question but doesn’t GW have to be at least codified into law just to give prosecutorial legal standing?

Indeed...seems like there would need to be some law or regulation already in place, where the potential financial effects could be measured, before XOM would have any duty to caution investors about any such effects, if any there may be. I'd say the prosecutor has a real uphill climb here, unless all he's trying to do is wrangle some sort of nuisance settlement out of XOM.

[Hostage]

The fraudulent loophole the NY prosecutors are using is the requirement that public companies disclose all potential factors real or potential to investors.

These sleazy prosecutors attack Exxon because Exxon has a whole floor of lawyers just like the prosecutors do. This is in effect a jobs program for NY government attorneys and it has a progressive ring to it, hence why they are doing it.

Exxon’s lawyers should have no problem for building a defense and motioning that the case be dismissed on numerous grounds. But NY government courts are infested with people that relish the controversial. So we can assume the court will have fun with being in the news.

If the court doesn’t dismiss, Exxon may win on appeal.