Exxon Mobil Files Proxy Statement

TL;DR

XOM filed its proxy statement, standard stuff for shareholders.

AI Summary

Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) has filed a Definitive Additional Materials proxy statement (DEFA14A) on May 28, 2024. This filing is related to the company's proxy materials and does not involve a fee, as indicated by the 'No fee required' checkbox. The filing is for the fiscal year ending December 31.

Why It Matters

This filing is a standard regulatory requirement for public companies, providing shareholders with information relevant to upcoming votes and corporate governance matters.

Risk Assessment

Risk Level: low — This is a routine regulatory filing for a large, established public company and does not contain new or unusual financial information or strategic changes.

Key Players & Entities

• EXXON MOBIL CORP (company) — Registrant
• 0000034088 (company) — Central Index Key
• 2911 (company) — Standard Industrial Classification
• 135409005 (company) — IRS Number
• NJ (company) — State of Incorporation
• 1231 (company) — Fiscal Year End
• 001-02256 (company) — SEC File Number
• 24985768 (company) — Film Number
• 22777 SPRINGWOODS VILLAGE PARKWAY (company) — Business Address Street 1
• SPRING (company) — Business Address City

FAQ

Filing Documents

• d717960ddefa14a.htm (DEFA14A) — 17KB
• g717960page002.jpg (GRAPHIC) — 3KB
• g717960page003.jpg (GRAPHIC) — 3KB
• 0001193125-24-147226.txt ( ) — 27KB

From the Filing

DEFA14A UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 SCHEDULE 14A Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Filed by the Registrant Filed by a Party other than the Registrant Check the appropriate box: Preliminary Proxy Statement Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2)) Definitive Proxy Statement Definitive Additional Materials Soliciting Material under 240.14a-12 EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION (Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter) NOT APPLICABLE (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant) Payment of Filing Fee (Check all boxes that apply): No fee required Fee paid previously with preliminary materials Fee computed on table in exhibit required by Item 25(b) per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11. Exxon Mobil Corporation James R. Chapman 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway Vice President, Treasurer and Investor Relations Spring, Texas 77389 May 24, 2024 Glass Lewis 255 California Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94111 RE: 2024 Glass Lewis Proxy Statement Report and Amendments We note the May 23, 2024, amendment to the Glass Lewis report stating the following on page 13: On May 22, 2024, the District Court denied the defendants motion to dismiss the case as moot at this time. The court also dismissed Follow This, but not Arjuna Capital, from the case, for lack of personal jurisdiction and asked the parties to brief whether the case should remain in Fort Worth, noting that the Companys decision to file there perplexes since the Companys headquarters is in a suburb of Houston, Texas. (emphasis added) The original report contained similar language: We note that the Company chose to file this lawsuit in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas, a venue several hundred miles from its headquarters and much further for the proponents whose case assignment practices have been criticized. The venue has allegedly been targeted by conservative litigants hoping for favorable rulings (Jacequline Thomsen. Shopping for the Judge You Want Honed to Perfection in Texas. Bloomberg Law, May 9, 2024). (emphasis added) Glass Lewis seems to be implying in these statements that ExxonMobil illegitimately filed in Fort Worth, Texas. Glass Lewis apparently finds this point very compelling based on it being the leading statement in their summary in opposing Mr. Hooleys board candidacy. The report states on page 22: Several factors regarding this issue merit deeper consideration. The Company chose to file this lawsuit in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas, which has, in recent years, been selected more frequently by conservative litigants looking for favorable rulings. This forum is also a considerable distance from both proponents, which are based in Massachusetts and Amsterdam, as well as the Companys headquarters in Houston. (emphasis added) We sought to address this questionable analysis in our May 15, 2024, letter1 to Glass Lewis where we explained that it excludes important facts, such as ExxonMobils headquarters being in the Northern District of Texas the last two years during which this proposal was submitted. We were disappointed that these undisputed facts were not included in the update. 1 See pages 5-6: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312524139185/d822081ddefa14a.htm 1 We are writing a second time to make Glass Lewis aware of additional undisputed facts that we believe make the current analysis untenable and require a further update and modification in Glass Lewis recommendation. Today, on May 24, 2024, ExxonMobil and Arjuna Capital submitted a joint response to the court where both parties agree that the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas is the proper venue for continuing the case. The joint response to the court states, in part: ExxonMobil and Arjuna agree that an assessment of these factors does not clearly demonstrate good cause to transfer this case to the Dallas Division or to the Southern District in Houston. This dispute may be resolved through motions and briefs, and the difference between Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston will have little relative impact on any evidence gathering that may be required. The parties also discern no difference among the contemplated venues in terms of expertise with the federal securities laws or the prompt resolution of proceedings. We believe the time has come for Glass Lewis to correct the record and put an end to the injection of politics into its recommendation by suggesting the court is anything other than the appropriate and proper venue for a fair and impartial hearing on this matter. To be clear on the factual record, not only did Arjuna never raise a concern with the venue at the outset of the case, but when asked by the court, Arjuna agreed that this court was the proper

View Full Filing

View this DEFA14A filing on SEC EDGAR