MMC Names New Chairman, CEO at Marsh Inc.
National News • October 15, 2004
Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc. (MMC) on Friday announced a change in the management of Marsh Inc., its risk and insurance services subsidiary.
Michael Cherkasky has been named chairman and chief ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: Greenberg
Posted On: October 17, 2004, 12:00 am CDT
Posted By: Billy
Comment:
I think Marsh doesnt get it. It's clear from the complaint (and by Spitzer's pointed comments about Marsh management) that in order for them to have any chance of survival that Jeff Greenberg will have to resign. Naming a new CEO of the brokerage unit means nothing (especially since the old CEO is staying on as an advisor).
The complaint implies that their was a corporate protocal and culture for deception and bid rigging. Unless Marsh cleans out the entire board and executive management, the company is done.
Also, the alleged undisclosed MSA's (PSA's) were not the only overpayments made by Marsh clients. Specifically it was the inflated premiums that were paid as a result of the alleged bid rigging. How does one calculate this amount. Premiums could have been inflated by anywhere from 1% to 20% or more. Thus, the damage to clients was potentially far into the billions on an annual basis.
If the bid rigging allegations are true, then this behavior was exceedingly worse than the behavior of Arthur Anderson.
If the bid rigging allegations are true, then the Marsh management showed a total disregard for anti-trust laws and deserves everthing that Spitzer throws at them. Memo to Jeff Greenberg: step down and do the right thing for your company and your industry.
Subject: Greenberg
The complaint implies that their was a corporate protocal and culture for deception and bid rigging. Unless Marsh cleans out the entire board and executive management, the company is done.
Also, the alleged undisclosed MSA's (PSA's) were not the only overpayments made by Marsh clients. Specifically it was the inflated premiums that were paid as a result of the alleged bid rigging. How does one calculate this amount. Premiums could have been inflated by anywhere from 1% to 20% or more. Thus, the damage to clients was potentially far into the billions on an annual basis.
If the bid rigging allegations are true, then this behavior was exceedingly worse than the behavior of Arthur Anderson.
If the bid rigging allegations are true, then the Marsh management showed a total disregard for anti-trust laws and deserves everthing that Spitzer throws at them. Memo to Jeff Greenberg: step down and do the right thing for your company and your industry.