New York v. UBS Financial Services
Suit charged UBS with violations of state anti-fraud laws, as well as common law fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty by falsely promoting InsightOne as providing personalized advice and other financial planning services and pushing unsuited customers into InsightOne.
In re Prudential Settlement
Prudential agreed to eliminate the payment of contingent commissions to brokers on group insurance products and provide full disclosure of broker compensation to employers who seek to purchase insurance for their employees through Prudential. Prudential will also provide restitution of $16.5 million to policyholders and pay civil penalties totaling $2.5 million.
New York v. Liberty Mutual Holding Company, Inc., No. 06 401726, NY S, Ct.
Charges four-year pervasive bid-rigging and anti-competitive customer allocation scheme, in exchange for illegal payments. In 2010, Liberty Mutual agreed to pay $5.5 million to NY and $2 million to Connecticut to settle the allegations.
In the Matter of ACE Ltd. and ACE Group Holdings, Inc.
ACE Ltd., an insurance broker, allegedly participated in bid-rigging schemes with Marsh McLennan and other borkers in which they provided sham bids tocustomers. ACE agreed to pay $80 milion in restitution and penalties, and to adopt a series of significant reforms of its business practices
In the Matter of Zurich Holding Co. of America, Inc. and Zurich American Insurance Co.
Zurich agreed to an Assurance of Discontinuance to resolve claims of bid-rigging and sham bidding. Under the AOD, Zurich paid $88 million to policy holders, $39 million to New York and $13 million each to Connecticut and Illinois.
Texas v. Zurich American Insurance Company (In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Lit. (D.C. No. 04-cv-05184, D.N.J.)
Zurich settled claims involving payment of contingent commissions and submission of false bids for insurance coverage.
New York v. American International Group (AIG), New York Supreme Court Index No. 401720/05, Judge Ramos
Original action filed in New York State Supreme Court alleged that AIG engaged in numerous fraudulent business transactions and improper accounting that exaggerated the strength of the company’s core underwriting business to prop up its stock price. In addition, evidence separately revealed that AIG engaged in bid-rigging schemes for excess casualty insurance business and used contingent commission agreements or placement service agreements to steer business
In Re: Insurance Antitrust Litigation, 938 F.2d 919, 1991-1 Trade Cases (CCH) & 69,460
Plaintiff States sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant reinsurers, brokers and trade organizations conspired to reduce the availability to public entities of commercial general liability insurance during the mid-1980s.
New York v. Willis Group Holdings Ltd., Willis North America Inc., Willis of New York, Inc., Assurance of Discontinuance
State of New York sought damages and conduct relief, alleging that Defendant Willis engaged in fraudulent and anti-competitive practices.
New York v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Marsh Inc. and their subsidiaries and affiliates
State of New York sought damages and injunctive relief, alleging that Defendant Marsh unlawfully deceived its clients by steering clients’ insurance business and soliciting fictitious bids.
