Skip to main content

The M.O.B. Meeting On Blumenthal's Suit

EXPURGATED MINUTES OF THE M.O.B. MEETING

The meeting commenced on Sept 11, 2005. Present were the parties, whose names are here omitted, involved in a settlement, a polite expression for plea bargain, with Connecticut’s Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The meeting was addressed by one of the lawyers, name omitted, who arranged the $30 million settlement deal. Noticing that the audience appeared downcast, the attorney sought to introduce a little levity into the proceedings.

“Welcome to the M.O.B.,” he began, causing a few eyebrows to arch upwards. The acronym, he explained, stood for Meeting of Brokers, “Not, you know, that other thing.”

Eventually, the attendees – some brokers and representatives of the three major Connecticut insurance companies involved in the settlement, names omitted, warmed to the speaker, but it was a stiff climb upwards.

“Why all the frowns?” the speaker asked. “Ah, I think I know. As everyone here is aware, a brokerage house,” name omitted, “had arranged to steer insurance products to three major Connecticut companies,” names omitted, “so as to maximize commissions and stiff the competition. An alert New York Attorney General early on got wind of the scheme and began to prosecute. It was not long before copy-cat prosecutors in other states followed suit – no pun intended. Anyway, to make a long story short, we settled with Connecticut’s attorney general, and all of us now are understandably glum because the settlement calls upon us to disgorge $30 million of our alleged ‘ill gotten gains’ to the clients steered by brokers to three large insurers – herein after ‘The Big Three.’ But every dark cloud has a silver lining. Under terms of the settlement arranged with the attorney general, we have been permitted to keep the remainder of the alleged ‘ill gotten gains’ – a cool $150 million.”

At this announcement, the room brightened up considerably.

“And,” the speaker continued, smiling broadly, “none of you will be Stewartized,” an arcane reference, we learned afterwards, to Ms. Martha Stewart, who did not enter into a plea bargain with prosecutors and ended up spending some time in prison. Upon her release, Ms. Stewart was forced to wear an unfashionable and unsightly ankle bracelet.

“No ankle bracelets for you,” the speaker joked.

Pumping his fist in the air, the speaker continued, “All the damaging publicity has been marginalized. Although the CEO’s of the Big Three, some of whom are here with us, conspired with a major brokerage firm to fix the market on insurance products, none have been named in Mr. Blumenthal’s suit as defendants. They will emerge from this ‘close call’ with their reputations and future earning potential intact.”

Though some news reports, the speaker said, described the verbiage of the suit as “scathing” towards the CEO’s of the Big Three, industry analysts – and very likely the consumers of insurance products – tend to regard such legal documents as press releases; and indeed, it is common practice for attorneys general such as Spitzer and Blumenthal to pre-release such information to reporters, pad their suits with self serving propaganda, and cut deals to make themselves look heroic to the general public. Blumenthal, he noted, used to dabble in journalism while in law school. Some bad habits, he said, are impossible to shake.

The bottom line, the speaker said, is this: Everyone gets a little piece of the political pie – except, maybe, clients served by the insurance companies. In the short term, they’ll get a few pennies rebated from commissions. But in the long term, they’ll be paying more for their insurance products because, the speaker said, the arrangement found offensive by Spitzer and Blumenthal might have provided insurance carriers with more customers, thereby enabling them to reduce the cost of their product to compete in an aggressive business environment made less profitable by, among other things, publicity hunting attorneys general willing to make political hay from well known and widespread industry practices.

This last remark produced a hearty round of applause.

END OF MINUTES

ADDENDA

The CEO’s of the Big Three, whose names were not mentioned in Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s suit, requested the same courtesy in these minutes. For reasons of clarity, the secretary would like to mention their names in this ADDENDA, which may become a public document. During the time of the alleged unethical activity, the CEO of Travelers was Jay Fishman; the CEO of the Hartford was Ramani Ayer and the CEO of CNA was (NAME DELETED OVER PROTEST OF THE SECRETARY.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

PCBs, GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH

By Gerald and Natalie Sirkin c2007 A front-page story on PCBs in the March 9 News-Times is just wrong. The first thing to know about PCBs is that they never killed a single person nor did they ever cause cancer. The second is that although they are invariably called “cancer-causing,” that designation comes chiefly from a single rat study. The third thing is that the subject rats were exposed daily for 21 months to 100 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs containing 60% chlorine. (The 100 ppm was about 5,000 times the tolerable daily intake of PCBs set by FDA in 1973.) When rats were exposed to PCBs containing less chlorine, they developed no cancers. The fourth, that when the exposed rats were allowed to live out their lives, they had fewer cancers and lived longer than the unexposed rats. PCBs is a family of chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls. PCBs contain chlorine ranging from 12% to 70%. They were used in two General Electric plants that manufactured electrical equipmen...

Taking The Fifth, After Esty

Whether or not U.S. Representative Elizabeth Esty will serve the remainder of her term or resign immediately is very much an open question. But, in any case, the battle for Connecticut’s 5 th U.S. Congressional District has begun with a show of unexpected fireworks. For many years, the 5 th District was a toss-up proposition; both Republicans and Democrats have held and surrendered the seat. Geographically the 5 th District touches the border of New York from Connecticut’s northern-most point to Danbury in the southern quadrant and includes much of Litchfield county and parts of Fairfield, Hartford and New Haven counties. Party affiliation is competitive, in round figures, 30 percent Democrat, 25 percent Republican and 45 percent unaffiliated. Over the years, the Democrat Party in Connecticut has moved from the center to the left, but the 5 th District has been a moderate preserve. During the Obama presidential election, Republican moderates within Connecticut's U.S. ...