Why Eliot Spitzer?

[Earth_First]

Notable cases

In addition to prosecutions and civil actions in the financial sector, Spitzer has pursued cases in both state and federal courts involving pollution, entertainment, technology, occupational safety and health and other fields in which New York plays a part in setting and maintaining national standards of conduct.

Securities

Global Settlement (2002): Spitzer sued several investment banks for inflating stock prices, using affiliated brokerage firms to give biased investment advice and "spin" initial public offerings of stock by offering them to CEO's and other influential members of the business community. In 2002, a settlement of these lawsuits was negotiated by Spitzer, federal regulatory bodies, stock exchanges, and the investment banks and brokerage houses in question. The result was $1.4 billion in compensation and fines paid by the brokerages and investment banks; new rules and enforcement bodies created to govern stock analysts and IPOs; and the insulation of brokerage firms from pressures by investment banks. Ten firms paid fines to settle the case: Bear Stearns, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS Warburg.

Late Trading & Market Timing Investigations (2003): Investigations by the office of Eliot Spitzer beginning in 2003 uncovered mutual fund brokers allowing select clients privileges deprived to ordinary customers. Spitzer targeted two practices in particular: "late trading" which allows hedge fund investors to file trades at the previous day's price after the market close, something ordinary customers cannot do; and "market timing" which allows privileged investors to buy and sell shares in funds more frequently than allowed under the fund's rules. The implications of these practices are that the brokerages and a small number of investors profit at the expense of other fund shareholders. In essence, by placing winning trades the privileged investors diluted the profit pool available to all fund shareholders while they sidestepped their share of the pool's losses. Their trading also increased administrative fees borne by ordinary customers and caused fund managers to increase the cash they held to meet liquidity needs. Through a number of prosecutions and lawsuits, Spitzer secured more than one billion dollars in fines and remuneration for investors as well as forcing reforms to eliminate the practice.

Insurance

Contingent commissions (2005): In the commercial insurance business "contingent commissions" or "overriders" are fees paid based on the volume and profitability of insurance business generated by brokers. They provide an incentive for insurance brokers to recommend more costly insurance to their clients, presenting a conflict of interest. While many large brokerages such as Marsh & McLennan Companies (against whom Spitzer filed his original suit), Aon and Willis announced plans to stop the practice of contingent commissions, many argued that the practice was not to blame for the rigged bids uncovered by Spitzer. Indeed, the practice accounted for about only five to seven percent of total revenues for brokers and did address a traditional misalignment of interests in insurance between the carrier and the producer. Under a traditional flat commission structure the latter has less incentive to submit risks with an eye for long-term loss potential in mind. So-called finite insurance products, which may more closely resemble a loan than insurance, were also investigated, even if there was "transferrence of risk" involved.

Safety and health

In 2002, Spitzer's office issued subpoenas to 24 non-profit crisis pregnancy centers that sought to dissuade women from having abortions. Pro-life groups criticized Spitzer, charging that he was harassing the centers on behalf of a political ally, NARAL Pro-Choice America. Spitzer's office argued that the centers used deceptive advertising and practiced medicine without licenses. The centers often use graphic videotapes and photographs to dissuade women from having abortions, and have been accused of deceiving women who come to them for advice.