RE:RE:RE:The Empire Strikes BackWe need to put this into perspective.
The two environmental groups want XOM to put a provision into their proxy statement that would require XOM to follow Scope 3 emissions goals. XOM is the only one of the five major US oil companies that doesn't follow Scope 3.
From XOM's perspective such a motion has already been voted on by shareholders in a previous annual meeting and therefore doesn't need to be voted on again. The companies says that to arrange for a vote on it is an unnecessary cost.
The counter argument is that 7every shareholder has the right to call for a vote on a subject at an Annual Meeting. Further the shareholder makeup could be quite different from the previous vote and so the vote could go a different way this time.
As is usual in US Court proceeding, the merits of a case depend a lot on the political leanings of the judge as opposed to the law. In this case XOM filed the case in a Court where the assigned judge is a Bush appointee and consistently rules rules in favour of conservatives.
I suspect that if this judge concurs with XOM, the case will be appealed to a higher Court since such a decision would set a dangerous precedent for shareholder rights, the underpinnings of the whole stock market.