text: The art of the "big lie" is to repeat something often enough, and with a powerful enough megaphone, such that your distortions are not challenged. So it is with the Wall Street Journal's obsession with attacking and misrepresenting the multiple cases that I brought against both AIG and its former chairman and CEO, Hank Greenberg. 
   
   At stake is much more than the particular cases at issue. By trying to rewrite the narrative of the economic cataclysm we have lived through, the deniers are attempting to challenge the common-sense conclusions that flow from an accurate understanding of history. They are desperately trying to protect a particularly rabid, and ultimately damaging, anti-regulatory philosophy that has dominated the past 30 years. They are trying to protect a broken and misguided understanding of how markets really function, a view now openly rejected even by such staunch free-market advocates as Judge Richard Posner and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Acknowledging the propriety of any government prosecutions of corporate wrongdoing would make impossible their current effort to push back against even the government's minimal responses to the financial crisis. 
   
   So, in view of the Journal's recent editorial, a few facts are in order: Greenberg was removed as CEO of AIG by his own board—of its own volition—after his refusal to answer questions about his involvement in fraudulent reinsurance contracts that his company had created. Five people were convicted by a jury in Connecticut in 2008 for their role in these frauds. The federal prosecutor, in his summation, called Greenberg an unindicted co-conspirator in the scheme. In New York, the judge who will hear the case based on these facts, brought by the state when I was attorney general, called the case "devastating" and referred to AIG as a "criminal enterprise." AIG as a corporate entity settled the case with my office in 2006 by restating its financial results and paying a fine of $1.6 billion. Shareholders are now awaiting judicial approval of an additional $750 million settlement to compensate them for damages they suffered from these accounting frauds. 
   
   Advertisement 
   
   
   
   Contrary to the claims of the Journal's editorial, the cases against Greenberg and AIG have been both proper and successful. More to the point, perhaps, they have been necessary to the vindication of justice and ethics in the marketplace. 
   
   The Journal's editorial also seeks to disparage the cases my office brought against Marsh & McLennan for a range of financial and business crimes. The editorial notes that two of the cases against employees of the company were dismissed after the defendants had been convicted. The judge found that certain evidence that should have been turned over to the defense was not. (The cases were tried after my tenure as attorney general.) Unfortunately for the credibility of the Journal, the editorial fails to note the many employees of Marsh who have been convicted and sentenced to jail terms, or that Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging, and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks. Marsh as a company paid an $850 million fine to resolve the claims and brought in new leadership. At the time of the criminal conduct, Jeff Greenberg, Hank Greenberg's son, was the CEO of Marsh. He was forced to resign. 
   
   What does it mean that supposedly thoughtful voices in the corporate world continue to deny the simple fact that irresponsible behavior should be addressed head on, and the rules of conduct altered sufficiently to permit a sound foundation for future economic growth? 
   
   I fear that we have still not constructed a social contract or general understanding of the role of government in the marketplace that will bring things into balance—in terms of both individual behavior and collective responsibility. Maybe we are still living in the remaining hours of a fading regime, still addled by the warped perspective of too many who have done perhaps too well over the past decade or two. A case in point is Steve Schwarzman, the founder and CEO of Blackstone, a private equity firm. Schwarzman recently compared the attempt to tax the often astronomical fees earned by private equity managers as ordinary income—as they should be—to Hitler's invasion of Poland. This horrific statement, from someone who spent millions of dollars on his own birthday party, is an unfortunate reminder of the mind-set of at least some pockets of our corporate leadership. It is time for more enlightened voices in the corporate world to use their own megaphones. 
   
   Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. 
   
   Like Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter. 
   
   Like This Story ||||| Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer speaks at the Reuters Global Financial Regulation Summit 2010 in New York April 28, 2010. 
   
   NEW YORK (Reuters) - Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was hit with two libel lawsuits seeking $90 million by former Marsh & McLennan Cos executives over a column posted on Slate.com about an insurance bid-rigging scandal. 
   
   The lawsuits arose from Spitzer's August 22, 2010, column, "They Still Don't Get It," advocating prosecution of corporate wrongdoers and defending his own enforcement activity against Marsh and insurer American International Group Inc. 
   
   William Gilman, a former Marsh executive marketing director, and Edward McNenney, a former Marsh global placement director, contended that they were defamed by the column, which appeared thee months after a judge threw out their convictions on felony antitrust charges. Neither is named in the column. 
   
   Slate.com is owned by Washington Post Co, and its parent Slate Group LLC is a defendant in both cases. 
   
   Gilman filed his $60 million lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, while McNenney filed papers seeking $30 million with the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Both cases were filed on Friday and made public on Monday. 
   
   Spitzer, in a phone interview, declined to comment after the first of the lawsuits, Gilman's, became public. Rima Calderon, a Washington Post spokeswoman, declined to comment. 
   
   Gilman had worked at Marsh for 28 years and McNenney for 14 years when Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, in 2004 opened a probe into the company's practices -- including alleged kickbacks for steering of clients to favored insurers. 
   
   Marsh, then the largest U.S. insurance broker, agreed in January 2005 to pay $850 million in a civil settlement with Spitzer, and eight insurance executives including Gilman and McNenney were indicted eight months later in the probe. 
   
   Both men were found guilty in February 2008, but the presiding judge threw out that conviction in July 2010, citing new evidence. That case was dismissed in January. The other indicted executives either were acquitted or had their cases dismissed. Twenty-one others pleaded guilty. 
   
   "SCAPEGOATS" 
   
   In his complaint, Gilman said Spitzer defamed him in writing, stating that "Marsh's behavior was a blatant abuse of law and market power: price-fixing, bid-rigging and kickbacks all designed to harm their customers and the market while Marsh and its employees pocketed the increased fees and kickbacks." 
   
   Gilman also said Spitzer defamed him in writing by stating that "many employees of Marsh" have been "convicted and sentenced to jail terms," when none had. 
   
   Spitzer had written the column shortly after an editorial critical of him in The Wall Street Journal. 
   
   "While Mr. Spitzer's statements do not refer to Mr. Gilman by name," Gilman's complaint said, "Mr. Gilman is readily identifiable as the subject of the defamatory comments." 
   
   "Mr. Spitzer was well aware of his own allegations as attorney general and the resolution of those allegations in favor of Mr. Gilman and yet, recklessly disregarded these facts," the complaint said. 
   
   Punitive damages account for half the amounts sought in each lawsuit. "I don't know what possessed him to make the statements that he made," Jeffrey Liddle, a lawyer for Gilman and McNenney, said in an interview, referring to Spitzer. 
   
   In June, Gilman and McNenney accused Marsh in a separate lawsuit of colluding with Spitzer to make them "scapegoats" and avert potential criminal charges against the company. That case seeks to recover unpaid compensation and other damages. 
   
   Last month, Time Warner Inc's CNN canceled Spitzer's low-rated television talk show "In the Arena," after less than one year on the air. [ID:nN1E7651A4] Spitzer resigned as New York's governor in March 2008 after a scandal in which it was revealed that he had hired a high-priced prostitute. 
   
   The cases are Gilman v. Spitzer et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-05843; and McNenney v. Spitzer et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County, No. 109628/2011. The earlier lawsuit is Gilman et al v. Marsh & McLennan Cos et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-08158. 
   
   (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Dave Zimmerman and Matthew Lewis)
target: – Two former execs at an insurance firm that paid out $850 million to settle allegations of shady dealing brought by Eliot Spitzer in his days as a crusading attorney general are now suing the former governor for libel. The former Marsh & McLennan execs, who claim Spitzer libeled them in a recent column for Slate entitled "They Still Don't Get It," are seeking $90 million in damages, Reuters reports. Neither man is named in the column, which stated that Marsh's behavior was a "blatant abuse of law and market power." Spitzer then listed illegal acts that he wrote were "designed" to harm customers. Both men were indicted on dozens of charges following Spitzer's probe. They were found guilty on one count of restraint of trade and competition, but that conviction was later overturned.