Spitzer Says No Criminal Charges Likely Against AIG; Greenberg’s Lawyer Maintains No Fraud Committed

April 4, 2005

  • April 5, 2005 at 7:46 am
    Florida Product Analyst says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not closely familiar with the Enron case, but it appears this is following the Enron example — full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. I don’t believe the guys at the top there have had criminal charges pressed, either.

    And as for the “he wouldn’t have done it if he thought it was wrong”… that doesn’t work for our insureds, nor does it work for the teen who shoplifts or any other “normal” person’s crimes or torts. Are we supposed to let that work for AIG?

  • April 5, 2005 at 8:23 am
    Godzilla says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So if I made exactly the same questionable deal at my company it would be a crime because it would have a huge impact on our financials. But it wouldn’t be a crime at a big company?

  • April 5, 2005 at 1:04 am
    Disgusted says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Who hasn’t known for years how dishonest these people are? No one should be surprised at this latest development.

  • April 5, 2005 at 1:17 am
    ED DiGioia says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dear Disgusted,
    Your remarks regarding that “Everyone at AIG seems crooked” is rather harsh. I have found the people that I work with on a daily basis to be honest, ethical and hardworking. To apply this to the entire company is “disgusting” and for not using your name shows a lack of character!

    ED DiGioia

  • April 5, 2005 at 1:24 am
    Practical Truth says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No one even mentions how AIG ignores Insurance Regulatory issues on a practical day to day basis…. If this Greenberg dude was such a good “Insurance” guy, why doesn’t his company follow the rules? How come they can get away with non-renewing every single policy they write every year?

  • April 5, 2005 at 1:57 am
    Jim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    OK have you read ANYTHING about Enron and charges being served? This is not even close to Enron! Before you comment, please enlighten yourself!

  • April 5, 2005 at 2:01 am
    Not Crooked says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You should probably get a clue before you make statements like this! But I guess you enjoy being Disgusted!

  • April 5, 2005 at 2:22 am
    LLCJ says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To what rules are you referring? Is it against the law to nonrenew?

  • April 5, 2005 at 2:42 am
    tired of it all says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Your statement and title make about as much sense as saying “every accountant is dishonest” because someone cheated on taxes, “every singer is a pedophile” because they are a singer, “every employee of a defense contractor is a crook” because of one incident at Boeing, “every federal or state employee is a lazy, good for nothing mass murderer” because someone goes postal.

    Get a life and stop accusing the masses for very isolated incidents.

  • April 5, 2005 at 2:50 am
    Florida Product Analyst says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    (Though this really has nothing to do with AIG, I started this side-spin so I’ll finish it real quick!)

    You’re right, Jim, I seriously misspoke myself (I have only a couple minutes when I put up a comment, so unfortunately, I do that). There were charges of course, and trials began some time ago, but not really for the top guys (which is what I meant to mention).

    However, I do see these trials are still set for “maybe 2005”. I admit I was going from old information in which it seemed things weren’t really going to move for the “movers and shakers”, especially until the heat was turned up on that topic. I’m still wondering if there will be heat turned up on AIG, or if it’s too far below the average radar.

  • April 5, 2005 at 2:56 am
    tired of it all says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Won’t the real issue ultimately be the financial impact on t he company. Enron’s senior officers drove it into insolvency. AIG’s actions are accounting for approximately 2% of stockholders equity, which has climbed dramatically from where it was even 10 years ago. A potentially incorrect accounting transaction (AIG) vs. intentional and massive fraud (Enron). Looks like apples and oranges to me.

  • April 5, 2005 at 3:15 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Trivial accounting irregularities would not be triggering this kind of upheaval at a company like AIG. Spitzer did not threaten to indict the company just because he was in a bad mood. Everyone is lawyered-up for a reason. Don’t pre-judge things…but fasten your seat belts. This is serious business. Get ready for some explosions.

  • April 5, 2005 at 3:46 am
    tired of it all says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Spitzer is after one thing, and one thing only, the Democratic nomination for Governor of New York and ultimately the Governor’s office. That isn’t intending to belittle the scope of the issues confronting AIG, but you notice that Spitzer has already moved away from Marsh issues, not because he has prosecuted the lead offenders, but there is no longer headline value in that issue. I am looking forward to the most transparent, most heavily monitored political campaign in the history of this country. Spitzer can’t afford to get a traffic ticket if he wants to get elected.

  • April 5, 2005 at 4:00 am
    Validated says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Poor uneducated soul… you must work for AIG

    FYI if AIG non renews EVERY SINGLE POLICY how would anyone know when they REALLY are non renewing an account, which is what state law requires..

    That is pretty much avoiding the law

  • April 5, 2005 at 4:56 am
    tired of it all says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You have got to be kidding. Every commercial company, not just AIG, for the past several years has issued a notice of non-renewal to every policy holder every year as a matter of policy. The various state laws mandating notice of non-renewal or rate change of more than 25% drove this to happen. Failure to send notice guarantees renewal and, unfortunately, no one knows which regulatory environments will trash out, which classes of business will be the subject of extraordinary tort litigation, which accounts will need a price increase of more than 25%, or which are deemed unprofitable until after the renewal process starts, roughly 90 days out. The only defense is the one allowed by regulatory fiat, namely sending notice. You only know if you are REALLY being non-renewed by meeting with your agent/broker and your carrier.

  • April 5, 2005 at 6:10 am
    Validated Yet Again says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hello, roughly 90 days out is plenty of time to non renew an individual account, which IS what other companies do.– You just said so yourself.

    You are categorically wrong in stating other companies do the same as AIG.

    Clearly you breath 8-5 AIG air as well. Too bad you are so out of touch with the rest of the industry. By the way, the agent has no idea if AIG is really non renewing an account until they send the renewal app in and hear back… which is definately NOT 60 days before expiration.

    That is, if they GET a renewal app. Usually by then the client goes elswhere because they have been non renewed.

  • April 10, 2005 at 4:16 am
    gary danielson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    spitzer is way off base with aig and I hope it paints him as an overzealous self agrandizing civil servant that he is.

  • December 3, 2006 at 9:32 am
    Insider says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Only CEO and CFO are out. Current CFO worked for the former CFO. If former CEO and CFO were crooked, what about the current ones who worked for former crook?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*