Edison executives made false statements on wildfire risks, lawsuit claims
Edison International officers and directors misled the company's investors about the effectiveness of its efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire in the months and years before the devastating Eaton fire, a shareholder lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, points to repeated statements that the utility made in federal regulatory reports that said it had reduced the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by more than 85% since 2018 by increasing equipment inspections, tree trimming and other work aimed at stopping fires.
The complaint also raises doubts about news releases and other statements that Edison made soon after the start of Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena.
'We take all legal matters seriously,' said Jeff Monford, a spokesman for Edison. 'We will review this lawsuit and respond through the appropriate legal channels.'
The lawsuit claims that Edison's early statements on the Eaton fire — in which it detailed why it believed its equipment was not involved in the fire's start — were wrong.
'Edison obfuscated the truth by making false and misleading statements concerning its role in the fire,' the lawsuit claims.
More recently, Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International, said the leading theory for the fire's start was the reenergization of an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon.
The investigation by state and local fire investigators into the official cause of the deadly fire is continuing.
The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action in which shareholders sue a company's officers and directors on behalf of the company, claiming they had breached their fiduciary duties. It seeks financial damages from Pizarro, Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti and members of the company's board of directors. Money recovered would go to the company.
It also directs Edison 'to take all necessary actions' to reform its corporate governance procedures, comply with all laws and protect the company and its investors 'from a recurrence of the damaging events.'
The lawsuit was brought by Charlotte Bark, a shareholder of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison.
'Prior to the outbreak of the Eaton Fire, the Company had a long history of not prioritizing the safety of those who lived in the areas it serviced, and paying fines as a result,' the lawsuit states. Since 2000, it says, Edison has paid financial penalties of $1.3 billion for violating utility safety regulations.
The complaint points to an October regulatory report that was the focus of a Times report. In the article, state regulators criticized some of Edison's wildfire mitigation efforts, including for falling behind in inspecting transmission lines in areas at high risk of fires.
The lawsuit lists the major destructive wildfires that investigators said were sparked by Edison's equipment in recent years, including the Bobcat and Silverado fires in 2020, as well as the Coastal and Fairview fires in 2022.
'The recurring wildfire incidents connected to the Company display that the Board has repeatedly failed to mitigate a risk that materially threatens Edison,' the complaint states.
The lawsuit accuses Pizarro, Rigatti and the company's board of directors of 'gross mismanagement' and claims that the defendants 'unjustly enriched' themselves.
'Because the Individual Defendants failed to carry out their respective duties, the compensation they received was excessive and undeserved,' the suit states.
It asks the court for an order that would require the officers and directors to pay restitution, including returning the compensation they received that was tied to how well the company performed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Abrego Garcia back in US to face federal charges
BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia is back in the U.S. to face a federal indictment in Tennessee accusing him of transporting across the country hundreds of people who had entered the U.S. illegally. The sprawling two-count indictment alleges the Beltsville resident conspired with others for nearly a decade to transport people, as well as narcotics and firearms 'on occasions,' in over 100 trips from Texas to Maryland and other states. It marks a surprising turnaround in the mistakenly deported Maryland man's legal saga after months of litigation seeking to bring him back. Since being deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison in March, the Trump administration has defied a judge's orders to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. or communicate their efforts to do so. Experts have warned of a ongoing constitutional crisis due to the Trump administration's failure to grant Abrego Garcia a hearing or abide by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' rulings. Justice Department officials said at a Friday afternoon news conference that they believed Abrego Garcia's indictment and return made the matter moot. 'Abrego Garcia has landed in the U.S. to face justice,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said at a Friday afternoon news conference. She said that El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who has previously refused to release Abrego Garcia, had agreed to return the 29-year-old after being presented with an arrest warrant. Abrego Garcia is charged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee with conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.' In a filing to keep Abrego Garcia detained in the U.S., the Justice Department said that his potential sentence, if he is convicted, 'goes well beyond the remainder of [his] life.' Abrego Garcia was stopped by Tennessee's highway patrol in 2022, while transporting eight people. Officers suspected that the matter 'was a human trafficking incident,' according to a Department of Homeland Security document, though Abrego Garcia was not initially detained or charged. That traffic stop appears to be at least part of the basis for the indictment, which was filed under seal in late May and cites the encounter. The indictment also accuses Abrego Garcia of being a member of MS-13. Since his deportation in March, which Xinis ruled was illegal, Abrego Garcia has been held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center as well as in a smaller prison in Santa Ana. Trump administration officials had said that he was 'never coming back' to the U.S., despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming Xinis' order to facilitate his return. For months, the Trump administration has tried to publicly justify Abrego Garcia's removal, repeatedly accusing him of presenting a public danger. In April, Bondi posted a series of documents on X, including a 2019 'gang field interview sheet' from Prince George's County Police that cited a Chicago Bulls hat and a shirt as being 'indicative of the Hispanic gang culture.' The only other piece of corroborating evidence was a confidential source, according to the document, and members of the public have called the integrity of the police officer who authored the report into question. The 2019 investigation led to an immigration hearing, in which a judge decided Abrego Garcia could remain in the U.S. because 'it was more likely than not' he would be subjected to gang violence if deported. On X, Congressman Andy Harris, a Trump ally and the lone Republican in the Maryland congressional delegation, said that returning Abrego Garcia, whom he called an 'already deported illegal alien criminal,' to the U.S. is 'a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars,' implying that he will be deported again after he stands trial. Maryland Democrats said that Abrego Garcia's return, despite under criminal charges, was a victory. In a statement Friday afternoon, U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, the Maryland Democrat who first traveled to El Salvador to visit Abrego Garcia, said that the Trump administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights – and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said. 'The administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' 'Kilmar Abrego Garcia should not have been deported,' U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat, said. 'Even the Supreme Court demanded this President follow the law and return him to the U.S. It is right that due process will be afforded to him.' In an interview Friday on CNN, Maryland U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin said he did not know any Democrats who've defended Abrego Garcia's conduct because to this point, he has not been charged with a crime. However, Raskin said since his deportation, Abrego Garcia has been entitled to a proper court procedure. 'It's not a moral question, it's a legal question,' the Montgomery County Democrat said. To accentuate his point, Raskin compared Abrego Garcia's case to Trump's criminal prosecution last year in New York. 'He had every element of due process along the way,' Raskin said of the president. Democratic Rep. Glenn Ivey, who also traveled to El Salvador to see Abrego Garcia but was denied access, said in a CNN interview Friday that the Maryland father's return was likely due to the White House 'getting a lot of heat' about his case. 'It's good they could bring him back, and hopefully they'll bring back the other 250 plus Venezuelans and others who are in this odd status of deportation, even though they haven't done anything or been convicted of any criminal activity,' said Ivey, who represents the Maryland district where Abrego Garcia resides. Shortly after the indictment was unsealed, the Justice Department asked for Xinis to dissolve a preliminary injunction ordering Abrego Garcia's return, adding that the 'underlying case should be dismissed.' In that case, Xinis recently permitted the plaintiffs to seek sanctions against the U.S. government. She had not made any new rulings as of Friday afternoon. _____ (Baltimore Sun reporters Hannah Gaskill, Luke Parker and Ben Mause contributed to this story.) _____
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Google searches for ‘how to move to Canada' cited in Travis Decker federal case
A federal arrest warrant has been issued for Travis Caleb Decker, the man accused of kidnapping and killing his three young daughters near Leavenworth, Washington, after authorities say he fled the area and may be attempting to escape prosecution. According to a newly filed affidavit from U.S. Marshals Service Deputy Keegan Stanley, Decker is charged with Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution. The charge comes in addition to existing state charges that include three counts of aggravated first-degree murder and three counts of first-degree kidnapping. The affidavit, filed in U.S. District Court in Eastern Washington, describes the intensive investigation following the disappearance and death of Decker's children: Paityn, Evelyn, and Olivia. The girls were last seen on May 30, during a scheduled custody visit in the Wenatchee area. Their remains were discovered two days later, on June 2, on U.S. Forest Service land near Icicle River Road in Leavenworth. Decker's vehicle was found at the scene, but he was not. Court documents reveal that Decker, a former military member and avid outdoorsman, may have used his extensive knowledge of wilderness survival to evade capture. Authorities say he is trained in long-distance movement, navigation, and off-the-grid living. Investigators also noted that Decker once lived off the land in remote terrain for more than two months. According to the affidavit, Decker conducted a series of Google searches on May 26, 2025 — just days before the girls were reported missing — that included phrases like 'how does a person move to canada', 'how to relocate to canada', 'jobs canada' and 'jobs canada'. He also visited the official Canadian job website, suggesting he may have been planning to flee the country. The affidavit notes that the location of the girls' remains is less than a dozen miles from the Pacific Crest Trail, which stretches to the Canadian border. The U.S. Marshals believe Decker may have headed into remote terrain with the intention of escaping law enforcement. A Chelan County Superior Court judge issued a warrant for Decker's arrest on June 3, ordering no bail until his first appearance in court. That warrant carries nationwide extradition authority. Decker's location remains unknown, and law enforcement agencies nationwide continue the search. Officials urge the public to report any confirmed sightings to authorities immediately.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Class-Action Lawsuit Accuses the Archery Industry of Price Fixing
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court last week is accusing the archery industry of colluding to fix prices of products at all levels. The suit, which was filed May 30 in U.S. District Court in Utah, names big-box store retailers like Bass Pro Shops, bowmakers like Mathews, and the Archery Trade Association for conspiring 'to fix the prices of — and eliminate price discounting and competition for — archery products.' The suit was first reported by Reuters on Monday. The 63-page lawsuit hinges on a policy known as Minimum Advertised Pricing, or MAP. Many archery companies and outdoor retailers won't sell their archery equipment, particularly compound bows, for less than a certain amount. If a bow shop undercuts agreed upon prices, manufacturers can — and have — enforced their MAP policies by revoking a shop's authorized dealer status for their brand. The lawsuit accuses the ATA of a 'campaign to artificially raise prices through MAP policies.' MAP policies grew from a need to combat online retail giants like Amazon. The global retailer began undercutting brick and mortar shops by selling products at discount, and without the previously included advice and bow servicing that local sporting goods stores offered customers for free when they purchased equipment. For example, flagship bows from top companies like Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, Bowtech, and others are not sold online. So if you want to purchase the new Mathews, you must show up in person at an authorized dealer. Usually, your local bow shop won't sell you a new bow below the MAP. While there, however, you'll have the opportunity to test-shoot bows and have a bow technician set up your bow properly. If new top bows were to be sold online and shipped directly to your home, industry insiders agree that local bow shops would be doomed. In recent years there's also been a rise in knock-off companies ripping off the design and packaging of top archery products, then selling them at discounted prices online. Customers would think they were buying a brand's top-tier broadheads, but actually receive a cheaper Chinese-made product. Warranty claims began to increase, and archery companies found themselves dealing with quality control and brand degradation. MAP policies were designed to help address this. MAP is a complicated issue, according to industry insiders, but such practices are legal when executed correctly and do not qualify as price fixing as defined by the Federal Trade Commission. The key distinction is that price fixing usually occurs between competitors, while MAP pricing occurs throughout the entire industry. 'MAP is generally legal if it's implemented unilaterally by the manufacturer,' says one former archery industry insider, who asked not to be identified due to the pending litigation. 'Price fixing is when competitors agree to a fixed price. And of course, a manufacturer and a retailer aren't competitors: one is a supplier, one is the seller.' The key, they emphasize, is 'unilaterally.' That means a manufacturer cannot favor one shop or distributor by offering one better pricing. Meanwhile, as e-commerce sales of low-priced and knock-off archery products continued to grow, bow manufacturers and accessory makers looked for an industry-wide solution. To protect their brand values and the industry itself, many companies began implementing MAP policies. 'MAP was completely legal,' the source says. 'No one was suggesting retailers fix prices and force consumers to buy X product at Z price. That never happened and never would have happened. And obviously retailers wouldn't have agreed to it. Retailers want the ability to do things their own way.' Another consideration is that price fixing is often done secretly — because it's illegal. MAP policies are widely publicized by everyone from the ATA to individual manufacturers. (You can find Bowtech's MAP policy here.) One key allegation the lawsuit may be seeking to prove, however, is that the industry tried to enforce not just the advertised price, but the sales price of archery equipment. 'Do I think there's price fixing? No, I've never participated in it. I know that I have dealers sell way below MAP in their store, but they do not advertise that way. And that is their decision. That is their store. I cannot dictate what they sell it for,' said one bow company executive who was not authorized by their legal team to speak publicly about the lawsuit. 'It's a slippery slope because if there's no protection from an advertising standpoint, the big guys are gonna gobble up the small guys. There are shops in the country right now that sell Mathews at $50 to a $100 over cost so that they will sell every Mathews within a 150 mile radius and try to push the smaller guys out of business. I've been told that by big dealers. They don't advertise it but people just know they go in there, you know, they're gonna pay $50 to a hundred over as opposed to $350 to $400 over. So if they could start advertising on what they want and there's nothing we could do, it would drive half the shops in this country out of business.' Because ATA is a non-profit organization, its records are subject to public records requests. The lawsuit is packed with excerpts of these statements that are intended to bolster the price-fixing argument. Here are a few examples: 'These coordinated MAPs have benefited the industry collectively, allowing retailers and distributors to 'strive for a minimum of 40% profit,' according to the industry trade association National Archery Buyers Association ('NABA'). As one Archery Products retailer observed, 'Every dealer I have ever talked to thinks everything in archery is overpriced today, just as I do . . . . [I]s archery overpriced, absolutely.' 'The ATA explained that 'MAP . . .policies help retailers stay in tune with the market and margin expectations. In other words, if you understand and follow a manufacturer's MAP policy, you'll be better positioned to make more money and run a successful business.' The suit is brought by plaintiff Joseph Santarlas from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 'on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.' In other words, anyone who has bought the archery products referenced in the suit. Santarlas was working Friday and was not immediately available for comment when reached by phone. None of the eight attorneys who signed their names to the lawsuit have replied to Outdoor Life's repeated requests for comment this week. Four different firms, with offices in California, Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania, are listed as counsel for the plaintiff. Most of the firms specialize in antitrust and class-action lawsuits. One industry insider noted that the defendants named in the suit are all larger companies with deeper pockets that might be able to settle such a lawsuit before ever reaching court. Smaller manufacturers and mom-and-pop bow shops are not named. The lawsuit names: Hoyt Bowtech Mathews PSE Cabela's Dick's Bass Pro Shop Jay's Sporting Goods Kinsey's Outdoors Lancaster Archery Supply Archery Trade Association Two software companies that helped companies track MAP pricing Most companies listed in the lawsuit, including Bass Pro Shops, did not return requests for comment or declined to comment to OL. The Archery Trade Association also did not return a call for comment, but issued a brief public statement via email on Friday shortly after OL reached out. Read Next: The Heavy Arrow Trend Is Dead. Speed Is Back 'The Archery Trade Association has learned of a recently filed lawsuit against the ATA and a group of archery manufacturers, distributors and retailers,' reads the statement. 'The complaint seeks relief related to Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) policies dating back more than a decade. The ATA is in the process of preparing an appropriate response to the complaint and looks forward to a swift and favorable conclusion to this matter.' Scott Einsmann contributed reporting.
