By Chris Sanders
Reuters
NEW YORK (Reuters) - American International Group
"It's just a preliminary dialogue," Spitzer's spokesman Darren Dopp said,adding that the attorney general had said early on that he intended tosettle with AIG.
Dopp added that there have been no sit-down talks or discussions of termswith AIG, which is the world's largest insurer by market value.
Spitzer and the New York Insurance Department filed a civil lawsuit againstinsurer AIG, its former Chief Executive Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, and itsformer chief financial officer, in May saying they committed fraud andmanipulated the books.
Greenberg and former CFO Howard Smith, who were ousted when theinvestigation first picked up steam, took part in numerous fraudulentbusiness deals that exaggerated the strength of the company's coreunderwriting business and propped up its stock price, according to thelawsuit.
Along with New York authorities, the U.S. Justice Department and theSecurities and Exchange Commission have been investigating AIG.
AIG spokesman Chris Winans said the insurer continues to cooperate with allinvestigations and has no comment on continuing litigation.
"As an investor, it would be very good news to put this issue behind us."said Hugh Johnson, chief investment officer Johnson Illington Advisors.
Since just before news of the probes into AIG hit the headlines on February14, AIG's share price has fallen about 17 percent while the S&P insuranceindex <.GSPINSC> is down about 2 percent.
At the end of May, AIG said it had overstated net income for the past fiveyears by $3.9 billion, or 10 percent.
Following an internal review, AIG finally released a thrice-delayedregulatory filing in which it also cut its net worth through the end of 2004by $2.26 billion, or 2.7 percent -- less than an early May warning of apossible $2.7 billion.
(Additional reporting by Aleksandrs Rozens)
Reply Reply to author Forward Rate this post: Text for clearing space Kelly Bert Manning View profile More options Jul 13 2005, 6:12 pmNewsgroups: can.legalFrom: b...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Kelly Bert Manning)Date: 14 Jul 2005 00:12:59 GMTLocal: Wed, Jul 13 2005 6:12 pmSubject: [Paging David Prouse] Re: AIG and Spitzer explore settlementReply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
David Prouse is a paid PR shill for the Insurance Bureau of Canadawho often posts to groups, failing to mention where his pay chequescome from when posts items which appear to be part of his paidwork output.
"Enemy of the Ontario insurance cartel" (Edmund.Fitzger...@Hotmail.com) writes:
About stuff that doesn't have much to do with Ontario Insurance.
BTW, did anyone else catch that report about the Consumers Association ofCanada comparison of Private Alberta Basic Insurance versus Public Autoinsurance as it exists in BC? That is, Alberans pay about $400/year morefor an inferior, 1950s style, basic auto insurance package than driversin BC.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050708/ca_pr_on_bu/...
Skinny version, a comparison of 800,000 rate quotes showed private insurersripping off Alberta residents by charging 30% more for worse coverage thanis available from ICBC.
VANCOUVER (CP) - Albertans pay 30 per cent more than British Columbians for car insurance and get worse benefits, according to a study released Thursday by the Consumers' Association of Canada.
In initial results of a national study, the association said Alberta drivers are paying about $400 a year more for auto insurance than those in British Columbia. ... "Crash victims got shafted while insurers put the money in their pockets."
Cran called the government-owned Insurance Corporation of British Columbia the envy of Canada. The association is not against private-sector insurance, he added, but is simply looking for the best deal for consumers. ...
This also shows the folly of going to so called "no fault" insurance schemeswhich penalize the innocent victims of dangerous drivers. Is it Manitoba orSaskatchewan which has a dismal reputation as the happy killing and maimingground for drivers who shouldn't be on the road in the first place? That isthe settlements are limited by law and have no bearing on the financialhardship suffered by the victims of bad drivers. This even extends to afarcical "fairness" review which in fact has nothing to do with determiningwhether the settlement is fair. It simply determines whether the madateddetermination process had been followed.
People who support "no fault" are generally dangerous drivers and leadfoots who pretend that accidents are something that "just happens", without any contributing factor such as speeding or aggressive driving.
