(Bloomberg) –New York's highest court again rejected a bid by former American International Group Inc. Chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg to dismiss the state's decade-old fraud suit against him, clearing a path for a trial.
Greenberg, 91, stepped down as chief executive officer of AIG in March 2005 after building it into the world's largest insurer over four decades. Shortly thereafter, company officials said one of its transactions was improper, restated its earnings by $3.4 billion and paid $1.6 billion to settle claims by regulators.
Greenberg and former AIG Chief Financial Officer Howard Smith were sued the next month by then Attorney General Eliot Spitzer under the state's Martin Act, an almost century-old law that gives prosecutors the power to probe investment frauds, Ponzi schemes and other forms of white-collar crime.
Spitzer alleged Greenberg and Smith were responsible for transactions to hide a decline in the company's loss reserves and mischaracterize underwriting losses. Since then, Greenberg has faced off against three successive attorneys general in the case, which was set to go to trial in June 2015 before an appeals court in Manhattan sent the case to the state's high court in Albany for review.
The lawsuit will return to New York State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos in Manhattan.
Greenberg defense
Greenberg had argued that the Martin Act and another state law didn't allow the attorney general to seek to bar him or Smith from the securities industry, ban them from serving as officers or directors of public companies and ask for repayment of wrongfully obtained profits. The court in Albany disagreed, saying the relevant laws allow the attorney general to seek a range of remedies including repayment.
"The Martin Act contains a broad, residual-relief clause, providing courts with the authority, in any action brought under the act, to 'grant such other and further relief as may be proper,' " the court of appeals said.
State prosecutors dropped their demand for monetary damages after AIG shareholders settled claims against the company for $115 million. But they continued seeking to force Greenberg and Smith to disgorge any performance-based bonuses that may be related to the transactions and to have the two men barred from the securities industry and from serving as corporate directors.
