New York AG Andrew Cuomo's office has subpoenaed Prudential (PRU) and MetLife (MET) as part of a...

This news story has 8 comments:

Register or Login to rate comments »

coloneldebugger Comments (832)
 
eh, just given him 75 million and call it a day
29 Jul 2010, 01:55 PM Reply Like

treno Comment (1)
 
Unbelievable. I wonder, did they anticipate this would never surface; or, when it did surface, the judicial leniency would assess a fine substantially less than the profits. Those at the top are allowed keep their millions and those at the bottom take a bath to wash off the stench. So many corporations are currently plundering with so little consequence
29 Jul 2010, 02:06 PM Reply Like

DagnyTaggart Comments (486)
 
Even if a fine larger than the profits is levied, its the shareholders that take the bath, not managment. The past bonuses based on income (now known to be fruadulent) will never be recovered by the shareholders.
29 Jul 2010, 02:14 PM Reply Like

tiolorf Comments (4)
 
Sounds similar to what the US gov has done with Social Security contributions.

Similar except the gov forces these things. Those dealing with the insurers did so voluntarily.
29 Jul 2010, 02:08 PM Reply Like

Duude Comments (3274)
 
The "potentially risky accounts" are a misnomer. Insurance companies deposit the funds into their general fund with the beneficiary's name attached. They pay a small rate of return. The risk is the risk of the insurance company going bankrupt, but the original policy had the same risk. This is written to produce maximum horror for political purposes. I wish Andrew would open up about his involvement as the director of HUD during the clinton administration when he authorized Fannie and Freddie to step and invest in more sub prime and alt a mortgages.
29 Jul 2010, 02:19 PM Reply Like

Wilky Comments (103)
 
I don't think that all those dealing with the insurers did so voluntarily. I saw a report last night of a lady whose son had been killed in Iraq. Basically, she was told that funds had been deposited for her at the Prudential ($400K), I presume by the military as life insurance on her son, and that she could draw it, whole or in part, at any time. When she wrote a check to draw some of the funds they refused payment saying there was something wrong with the checks - the ones they had sent to her!!!!!!!!! She is still waiting for her money. In the meantime reporters have discovered that, although the Pru was drawing almost 5% interest on her funds, they were paying her less than 1%. Insurance companies, banks and government departments are the biggest thieves and cut-throats in the whole damn world. At least we know that the terrorists are out to shaft us.
29 Jul 2010, 02:19 PM Reply Like

Duude Comments (3274)
 
I watched that same report. It made it sound like her money was gone forever. What really happened was Prudential sent her what looked like a checkbook but provided disclosure that it wasn't really a check book at all. This is a stupid marketing ploy on Prudential's part to make it look like her money could be as instantly accessed as writing a check. Clearly designed to encourage her to leave it with them while in mourning. I don't like this gimmick, but I don't have any problem with them earning a bigger return on her money than what they pay her. That's how all financial companies operate. Nevertheless, if she had read the disclosures she received she would have known that she had to send in a form to obtain the proceeds of the insurance.
29 Jul 2010, 02:40 PM Reply Like

Tack Comments (9244)
 
Merely another grandstanding corporate shakedown to fund the ever-voracious appetite of big government. The list of business candidates from which to extort money is endless.

And, it will continue while the gullible voters continue buy the "whited-hatted," compassionate government, "black-hatted," evil business theme.
29 Jul 2010, 02:27 PM Reply Like