Prosecutors Allegedly Pressing Berkshire to Remove Gen Re Head

April 11, 2008

  • April 11, 2008 at 2:09 am
    bernie geis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    WHY, Guilt by Association ?

  • April 12, 2008 at 9:27 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    um…um….

    why does a prosecuting attorney think he has the right to pursue this avenue? look at the statement, we will stop the investigation if you remove him. um…. he was not taken to court and not found guilty by any means. look they even tried to get warren buffet, but that failed as well. i think these four folks just really did themselves in. Berkshire (parent company) holds high standards. if you look at all the other companies they have underneath that umbrella, this was the only one that made a mistake or at least 4 little bitty grub hungry folks along w/the AIG fella tried to tip past the feds. it did not work.

  • April 12, 2008 at 4:32 am
    x insurer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wudchuck, you must have sawdust in your eyes. Those 4 guys were not bitty, grubby or conniving, naive perhaps. If you are trying to be sneaking and deceive people you do not ask 42 other people how to do it. Remember Hank, insurance man of the year for numerous years said this is what I want. Gen Re then said, how do we do that to help a customer, a gen re creed that would come back to bite them. People did this stuff all the time in the insurance industry and as all the rules were a bit fuzzy on them, my guess is if you went looking you would find a bunch more deals under the microscope that didn’t cut the mustard. I would look to the mortgage industry if you want to find the guys who were wringing their hands over the money they would make.
    And the reason the want Joe, is he was in on the deal as the CFO when it first started. If they can get the poor guy on the board of the Irish company they certainly should go after the CFO who was one of the people who was consulted about the deal.

  • April 14, 2008 at 12:35 pm
    Stat Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thanks for your comments X-insurer but I have to say that the feds are off base by suggesting this. It may look bad for Mr. Brandon and he may have been involved….or not but if they want him out, they should put up, indict and prosecute. This is just their way of “getting” a guy they could not “get” the old fashioned way. They couldn’t make a case so they tarnish his reputation; calling someone a crook and finding a crook guilty are two different things. What ever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” As I see it, you don’t fire the company president just because his staff did something unlawful; if he did anything, don’t you think that one of the four would have turned on him and testified for the feds to help build a case? I doubt if they had enough….



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*