VAMPIRES IN...
The Reliance
Insurance Group
Sightings from The Catbird Seat
~ o ~
AIPAC Report
by Richard Freeman
The same Carl Lindner-United Fruit nexus of companies, which helped create the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond movement, and which through Lindner business associate and intimate Charles Keating Jr financed John McCain's runs for U.S. Congress, starting in 1981, also poured finances into the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In effect, the Lindner-United Fruit-Drexel apparatus, and that of AIPAC were indistinguishable.
Report #1 showed that in the 1974-77 period, Carl Lindner carried out two
integrated moves: first, he purchased sizeable ownership stakes and pumped
money into an host of dirty companies, including Saul Steinberg's Reliance
Insurance, Meshulim Riklis' Rapid-American Corp, Laurence Tisch's Loews
Corp, Victor Posner's NVF Corp, Charles Bludhorn's Gulf & Western Co.,
and Raymond Mason's Charter Oil.
Second, he purchased a smaller ownership stake in (but eventually took over) United Fruit/United Brands, the most important drug-importing and drug-money laundering company in America. In this latter activity, Lindner came under the tutelage of Max Fisher, who was in effect, at that time, chairman of Dope, Inc.
The Lindner-Riklis-Steinberg-Tisch operation and that of United Fruit
became tightly wound together, as in effect, one apparatus. Then, in the
same 1974-77 period, the oligarchy moved the United Fruit-Linder et al
apparatus, to build up the Drexel Burnham Lambert junk bond operation,
which entirely transformed the U.S. financial system and economy. This was
done in coordination with the House of Morgan and Baron Edmund de
Rothschild. This apparatus, through Lindner business partner and
intimate, Charles Keating, financed John McCain's political career.
Yet, this apparatus was not finished: it financed, and integrated with the
filth of the official U.S. Israel Lobby, AIPAC. Thus, the United Fruit-Lindner-Drexel apparatus, which through the junk bond/LBO/merger and
acquisition movement was destroying the financial system and destroying the
physical economy-- and targetting those industrialists and financiers who
still believed in a production-orientation of the economy-- was using the
proceeds reaped from the junk bond/LBO-vectored destruction, to fund
AIPAC.
In truth, AIPAC was financed from the process of wrecking the U.S. economy, and from organized crime.
- AIPAC -
AIPAC was created in 1954.
On January 12, 1989, former U.S. Congressman James Finley and some others-- James E. Adkins, George Ball, Richard Curtiss, Robert J. Hanks, Andrew I. Kilgore, and Orin Parker-- filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, which became FEC Matter Under Review (MUR) #2804, charging that AIPAC ran the activities of at least 27 pro-Israel Political Action Committees scattered throughout the U.S. The importance of this is that AIPAC, which deliberately calls itself the American Israel {Public Affairs} Committee, claims that it is not a political action committee, and therefore, because it does not engage in political campaigns, is not subject to any campaign regulation in any jurisdiction in the United States.
AIPAC claims it did not dispense any money. Of course, the 27 subrodinated- pro-Israel PACs would dispense the money, after, AIPAC, at the top, selected the targets of who to support and who to defeat, wrote the propaganda, and imposed a strategy.
The complaint by Congressman Finley et al, provided overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the tight overlap between the personnel of AIPAC and the 27 subordinated pro-Israel PAC, to demonstrate that this is one single network (by the late 1980s, there were 70 pro-Israel PACs, and Finley et al brought their charges against 27 of the most influential of these PACs).
By looking at the three most important pro-Israel PACs, we can get a sense of how the Lindner apparatus dominated, and were the backbone of these PACs. These three PACs are the Roundtable PAC of New York, the Mid-Manhattan PAC of New York, and the National PAC of Washington, DC. Key members of these PACs are fanatically anti-LaRouche and have run operations against the LaRouche movement.
*The Roundtable PAC (of New York).
To understand this PAC, it must be understood in 1968, a company called Integrated Resources was created by three brothers Jay, Seymour, and Selig Zises, and by Arthur H. Goldberg (NOT the former Labor Secretary and Supreme Court Justice). Jay and Selig Zises had worked for Saul Steinberg.
Intergrated Resources engaged in the usurious practice of "sale-leasebacks"
of office buildings and other real estate properties, with a mutual advisory
service on the side. By the early 1980s, this firm was openly dominated by the
Lindner-United Fruit-Drexel nexus, and was openly referred to as under the
domination of Drexel in the so-called mainstream "authoratative press." For
example, according to public reports, at one time, Saul Steinberg's Reliance
Insurance owned a chunk of Intergated Resources.
Zenith National Insurance Co, which was owned and run by Stanley Zax, who
was Michael Milken's cousin, owned 24.7% of Integrates Resources. Paul
Milstein, of the Milstein family that owned a portion of United Fruit, owned a
chunk of Integrated Resources, etc.
Integrated Resources' Jay Zises was one of two co-chairmen of the Roundtable PAC (as we shall see, his brother Seymour Zises was the president of the National PAC). The other co-chairman of the Roundtable PAC was James Tisch, who is the son of Laurence Tisch. We know Laurence Tisch very well: he owns Loews Corporation and is part of the Lindner apparatus (see Report #1), and is one of the founders in 1991 of the Mega Group.
The contributors to the Roundtable PAC, according to its records, included Ivan Boesky; members of the Riklis family, including Arlene Riklis; members of the Saul Steinberg family,including Saul's brother Robert Steinberg; members of the Tisch family, including James Tisch, the co-chairman of the Roundtable PAC; members of the Milstein family, of Milstein Properties, which in the 1970s and part of the 1980s, own a share of United Fruit
A founder of the Roundtable PAC was Robert Abrams, who became New York state Attorney General. Abrams was a member of the Get LaRouche Task Force, and raided the LaRouche movement in March, 1987. Another founder of the Roundtable PAC was Ethan Geto, a prominent member of NAMBLA, who was Abrams' assistant in the New York state Attorney General's office at the time of the raid on the LaRouche movement.
The law firm for the Roundtable PAC was Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, an organized crime law firm.
*The Mid-Manhattan PAC (of New York).
Contributors to the Mid-Manhattan Pac included Ivan Boesky, and some of the same above contributors to the Roundtable PAC.
The law firm for the Mid-Manhattan PAC was Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom of New York, the law firm that handled the largest volume of junk bond LBOs in the 1980s.
*The National PAC (of Washington, DC)
The president of the National PAC was Seymour Zises of the Lindner-United Fruit-Drexel-dominated Integrated Resources, and whose brother, Jay Zises, was one of the two co-chairmen of the Roundtable PAC.
A major figure at the National PAC was Morris Amitay, who was a member of JINSA (at the same time as Richard Perle and Stephen Bryen were members of JINSA).
The law firm for the National PAC was Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Phillips, of Charles Manatt, who was fanatically anti-LaRouche.
Contributions of the Pro-Israel PACs
As said, there were 70 pro-Israel PACs by the end of the 1980s. According
to the Feb 1, 1989 report of one of these PACs, the Ocean State Political
Action Committee, which is based in Rhode Island, in 1986, during the
Congressional election cycle of that year, the pro-Israel PACs gave $3.8
million which represented 2.8% of all money given in Congressional races that
year, and in 1988, the pro-Israel PACS gave $3.4 million, which represented
2.8% of all money given in Congressional races that year.
However, tv reporter Mike Wallace, in a late 1988 or early 1989 installment of the CBS news format program "60 Minutes" stated that pro-Israel PACS had given $6 million in the 1988 Congressional races, which would seem much closer to reality, and mean 5% of all Congressional campign contributions for that year.
If one thinks of all the different entities that give to Congressional campaigns, for one group to give 5% is very significant and gives them tremendous clout, especially when the blackmail against elected officials that the news media and think tanks carry out, is done in conjunction with the pro-Israel PACs.
Nazi Tactics
A two part Washington Post article of June 13 and 14, 1991 on AIPAC, reported on AIPAC's organizing tactics, which are Nazi Gestapo-like, with the intent of creating a reign of terror against Congress.
A section of the {Washington Post} article reports:
"...Just as important to the {AIPAC} lobby's clout is its reputation for playing rough. " 'We are slaves to some of the lobbying groups,' Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va) complained on the day of the Desert Storm vote. "I do not have to name names,' Byrd went on, "but I could.'
" 'My colleagues think AIPAC is a very, very powerful organization that is
ruthless, and very very alert," said another senator, who like so many on the
subject of AIPAC asked that {his} name not be named. 'Eighty percent of
the senators here roll their eyes on some of the votes. They know what they're
doing isn't what they really believe is right, but why fight on a situation
where they're liable to be beat up on?' " (emphasis in original).
We know from first hand experience, much much more about AIPAC's methods.
http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redirect.cgi?a=13&num=46
January 22, 2007
Two D&O Insurers Off the Hook for
Suits Against Asbestos Firm’s Ex-CEO
By FRANK REYNOLDS, Andrews Publications Staff Writer
A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled that two of GAF Corp.’s D&O carriers need not step in after the failure of Reliance Insurance Co. to cover suits alleging that an ex-CEO played a shell game with the assets of the foundering asbestos products maker.
Ruling on competing summary judgment motions, U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh said the New York Property/Casualty Insurance Security Fund and New Jersey Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association had no coverage obligation after GAF’s main insurer, Reliance, was placed in receivership in 2001.
The judge said he did not have the authority to force the two insurance funds to use their money to pay claims that should have been covered by Reliance.
However, motions by other D&O insurers that claim they have no duty to cover the underlying suits after Reliance failed are still pending. They include Hartford Fire Insurance Co. and Twin City Fire Insurance Coy.
Additionally Judge Cavanaugh said it would not be appropriate for him to enter a judgment to recover those defense costs from a fund containing the remaining assets of the bankrupt Reliance.
He said the receiver overseeing the insurer’s liquidation should decide whether some of that money should pay for the defense and/or settlement of fraudulent-conveyance claims against GAF’s ex-CEO and other defendants.
When G-I Holdings, the successor to beleaguered asbestos products manufacturer GAF Corp., filed for bankruptcy protection in January 2001, the bankruptcy judge allowed creditors to sue in federal courts in New York and New Jersey.
Those suits charged that ex-executive and major shareholder Samuel J. Heyman helped to engineer a billion-dollar corporate shell game during the transition of GAF into G-I.
According to court records, creditors charged Heyman and some of the holding companies he controlled with fraudulent conveyance, that is, that he allegedly transferred large portions of the assets of one company he controlled into another to shield those assets from creditors.
After the D&O insurers declined to cover those claims, G-I and Heyman filed this coverage action in bankruptcy court, seeking payment for his defense costs and any possible judgments or settlements in the underlying lawsuits.
The coverage action was held up by the insolvency of Reliance, which had provided GAF a primary $15 million D&O policy. Later, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and both sides moved for summary judgment.
In an earlier opinion Judge Cavanaugh said one of the D&O policies written by Hartford might cover the underlying actions, but that ruling was not final. The judge noted that Hartford allegedly purchased the assets and renewal rights to Reliance’s book of business as part of an asset purchase agreement.
The other insurers filed extensive briefing in support of their motions for summary judgment seeking a determination that they had no obligation to cover the underlying actions.
The instant ruling, however, addressed only New York Property/Casualty’s bid to be dismissed from the case.
However, in a separate order filed the same day Judge Cavanaugh also dismissed New Jersey Property-Liability for similar reasons.
The judge found that New York Property/Casualty had no coverage obligation. He declined to rule on how that decision would affect claims against the remaining assets of Reliance.
The payment of any claims against Reliance is a matter to be decided by the receiver administering the fund set up by the bankruptcy judge for that purpose, Judge Cavanaugh said, so it would be inappropriate for him to issue an order that would presume to let one group of claimants effectively butt in line.
Judge Cavanaugh dismissed the suit as to New York Property/Casualty and New Jersey Property-Liability and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint.
G-I Holdings et al. v. Reliance Insurance Co. et al., No. 00-6189, 2006 WL
3825142 (D.N.J. Dec. 22, 2006).
Corporate Officers & Directors Liability Litigation Reporter
Volume 22, Issue 16
March 2005
Area of Interest: Pennsylvania Insurance Department Reaches $85 Million Settlement Against the Directors and Officers of Former Reliance Insurance Company
Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Diane Koken, in her role as statutory liquidator for Reliance Insurance Company, announced today that the Department has finalized the negotiation of an $85 million settlement with the former directors and officers of the Reliance Insurance Group.
Of the $85 million settlement, $34 million will benefit the creditors of Reliance parent companies, Reliance Group Holdings Inc. and Reliance Financial Services Corporation. The remaining settlement proceeds of more than $51 million are being reserved for the benefit of Reliance’s policyholders. This $51 million, when combined with the $45 million previously recovered from Reliance’s parent companies, results in a recovery of nearly $100 million for Reliance’s policyholders from litigation brought by the Department.
In addition to a substantial monetary recovery, the settlement provides non-economic benefits, which were negotiated by the Department for the benefit of Pennsylvania policyholders and to deter future misconduct by insurance company executives. These include agreements from defendants Saul P. Steinberg and Robert M. Steinberg not to serve as officers or directors, or to hold a controlling interest in any insurance company domiciled, licensed or conducting insurance business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the next 15 years. Other defendants have also confirmed that they do not have a controlling interest in any insurance company domiciled, licensed or carrying on insurance business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Source: State of Pennsylvania
http://www.appliedriskcontrol.com/news05_03.asp
< < < FLASHBACK < < <
July 20, 2000
Leucadia Backs Out
of Reliance Deal
Leucadia National Corp. terminated its agreement Wednesday to buy Reliance Group Holdings for nearly $1 billion in stock and debt after negotiations with the struggling insurer fell through.
Leucadia backed out of its original acquisition agreement July 13 but remained in discussions with Reliance until last week. The companies were discussing possible alternatives to the agreement penned prior to Reliance selling off chunks of its property/casualty business last month.
Matthew Coyle, an analyst with Standard & Poor's, said further piecemeal sales are definitely something to watch for, particularly Reliance's international business.
"At this point, I think it's fair to assume everything's on the table," he said while Leucadia and Reliance were still attempting to rework the deal. Earlier this month, A.M. Best Co. downgraded the financial strength rating of Reliance Insurance Group to B (Fair) from B++ (Very Good).
The property/casualty group's rating remains under review with developing implications. The downgrade applies to the group's 13 domestic members and is the latest in a string of difficulties experienced by the company over the last several weeks.
Standard & Poor's lowered Reliance's rating July 7 because of increasing concerns that the company will fail in its efforts to refinance more than $500 million in debt obligations, which mature in August and November.
Also, the company continues to divest itself of key businesses, which Standard & Poor's believes weakens the company's ability to generate the necessary liquidity to meet its ongoing obligations. Another important consideration is that Reliance retains the run-off of reserves on the businesses it has sold.
Meanwhile, Reliance Group Holdings is defending a lawsuit claiming shareholders were harmed by company actions that resulted in falling stock prices. Late last month, the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action suit on behalf of Reliance Group Holdings security purchasers who bought between Feb. 8, 1999, and May 10, 2000. The action is pending in U.S. District Court in New York.
Along with the company, Saul Steinberg, chief executive officer and director; Robert Steinberg, president and chief operating officer; Howard Steinberg, chief of corporate operations; and Lowell Freiberg, chief financial officer and director, are named as defendants.
The complaint alleges that on March 31, 1999, the defendants, in their financial statement filed with the SEC for fiscal year 1998 operations, claimed the company's reinsurance contracts were valid, and recovery of the full amount of such coverage was expected.
The lawsuit asserts that the company's losses for that time period actually exceeded $150 million and the loss should have been reflected as a charge to income. The suit goes on to assert that, in May, the company reported its first fiscal 2000 quarter would see an operating loss of $.31 per diluted share, representing a greater loss than the same quarter 1999. The company's stock closed that day at $2.62, a decline of more than 40 percent from the period high of $11 per share.
Just prior to the announcement of the suit, Reliance began selling off insurance units piecemeal, first to The Hartford Financial Services Group, then to Kemper Insurance Cos.
On June 19, The Hartford announced it had agreed to purchase Reliance's D&O, E&S and Inland Marine units for an undisclosed amount. The following day, Kemper announced it would acquire the renewal rights to a portion of Reliance National's book of business.
From Forbes:
CEO/Chairman of the Board/Director at
Leucadia National Corporation
New York, New York
Director since June 1978
Mr. Cumming, 66, has served as a director and our Chairman of the Board since June 1978. In addition, he is Chairman of the Board of The FINOVA Group Inc. FINOVA is a middle market lender, in which we have an indirect 25% equity interest.
Mr. Cumming is also a director of Skywest, Inc., a Utah-based regional air carrier, and HomeFed Corporation, a publicly held real estate development company, in which we have an approximate 29.9% equity interest, Mr. Cumming has an approximate 7.4% equity interest in HomeFed and a private charitable foundation, as to which Mr. Cumming disclaims beneficial ownership, has a 2.1% equity interest in HomeFed.
Mr. Cumming is also a member of the Board of Managers of Premier Entertainment Biloxi, LLC, the owner of the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Biloxi, Mississippi, in which we own all of the preferred equity and 46% of the common equity. Mr. Cumming is also an alternate director of Fortescue Metals Group Ltd, an Australian public company that is engaged in the mining of iron ore, in which we have a 9.9% equity interest.
August 8, 2004
Isle lawyer group against
insurance disclosure plan
By Rob Perez, Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Hawaii's main lawyer group is opposing a national industry proposal that is designed to help potential clients become better informed when hiring attorneys.
A committee of the American Bar Association, the national trade group, is proposing that the organization adopt a model rule that would require lawyers to disclose whether they have malpractice insurance.
Such information, which clients typically don't ask about, would be helpful when someone is choosing a lawyer, the committee says. Insurance protects clients if their lawyers commit malpractice.
The bar associations from New Mexico, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, Delaware and Ohio are among those supporting the controversial rule, which, if adopted, would serve as a guideline that states would be free to adopt.
But the Hawaii State Bar Association recently voted to oppose the proposal. Hawaii will voice its opposition when ABA delegates consider the model rule at a meeting this week in Atlanta.
Supporters of the proposed rule say many clients assume their lawyers have insurance, don't think to ask about it or are reluctant to ask, creating the need for an independent source of such information.
"Because of (ethics) abuses that have occurred here and the failure of the system to protect the public from unscrupulous attorneys, something like this would be very beneficial to the public," Honolulu attorney Madalyn Purcell said of the proposed ABA rule.
But Dale Lee, president of the state bar, said the board, while applauding the intent of the proposal, had concerns about practical aspects of it.
A system that discloses only whether an attorney has coverage without specifying details, such as policy limits, may give a client a false sense of security, particularly if the coverage doesn't apply to the client's situation, Lee said.
"It creates a problem that maybe is not anticipated and defeats the laudatory purpose that they're trying to accomplish," he said.
Supporters say that while the proposal has its shortcomings, it is better than having no mandatory disclosure at all, which is the case in most states, including Hawaii.
"In our view, clients already have a false sense of security" because they usually assume their lawyer has coverage, said Robert Welden, a Seattle attorney who chairs the ABA's committee on client protection, which drafted the proposal.
Asked if the Hawaii bar would support a tougher rule requiring details of a lawyer's coverage to be disclosed, Lee said the board didn't address that question, only the ABA proposal. He noted that the ABA committee on lawyers' professional liability has opposed the rule.
Attorneys who work at large firms generally are covered by insurance policies obtained by their firms. But solo practitioners and lawyers who work in small firms sometimes opt to go without coverage. Lawyers in Hawaii and most other states are not required to get malpractice insurance, though clients who hire attorneys without coverage take a big risk.
If malpractice occurs and there's no insurance, the client generally has no recourse, attorneys say. They say the client could sue the lawyer, but if the lawyer's assets are sheltered, little likely can be recovered.
For a disclosure requirement to take effect in Hawaii, the state's high court would have to revise its rules governing the legal profession. Many states follow ABA guidelines. If the ABA disclosure rule is passed and Hawaii adopts it, lawyers would have to disclose whether they are insured when they register annually with the state bar. They also would have to provide notification if their coverage lapses or ends during the year.
Anyone could then contact the Hawaii bar to check whether a lawyer has coverage.
As an example of what can happen when a lawyer is not covered, Purcell cited the case of one of her clients who last year successfully sued an attorney for malpractice.
Rieko Tanaka has a roughly $184,000 judgment pending against attorney Richard Y.S. Lee, a former state judge. But Tanaka has had difficulty collecting the money because Richard Lee doesn't have malpractice insurance, according to Purcell.
She also said Richard Lee has sheltered his assets, making collection all the more difficult.
In a written response, Richard Lee said attorney corporations for years didn't have limited liability when they incorporated, so for purposes of estate and asset planning it made sense to "structure one's holdings." Despite the jury verdict against him in the Tanaka case, he denied committing malpractice. He said he didn't care if insurance disclosure became mandatory.
In nine states, lawyers are required to disclose -- either directly to their clients or on annual registration statements -- whether they have malpractice insurance. Only Oregon requires lawyers to obtain insurance.
Several local lawyers said the Hawaii bar's opposition to the proposed ABA rule was not surprising considering the organization also opposed a recent change that made the secretive lawyer disciplinary system here more public. That change was likewise designed to help the public, but many lawyers believed it wasn't warranted.
American Bar Association
www.abanet.org
Hawaii State Bar Association
www.hsba.org
http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/08/news/story6.html
~ ~ ~
For more, GO TO > > > Confessions of a Whistleblower; The Silence of the Whistleblowers
# # #
MORE TO COME
For now, here are some more “birds of a feather” that
you’ll also find building nests in this tree...
AIG: THE UN-AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP
AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK: BEHIND THE BLINDS
CITIGROUP: VAMPIRES IN THE CITY
CONFESSIONS OF A WHISTLEBLOWER
A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING KAMEHAMEHA’S COURT
DIRTY MONEY, DIRTY POLITICS & BISHOP ESTATE
FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY OF HAWAII
THE KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS PENSION PLAN
MARSH & McLENNAN: THE MARSH BIRDS
MARSH & McLENNAN’S GUY CARPENTER
THE PRUDENTIAL: A NEST ON SHAKY GROUND
THE SILENCE OF THE WHISTLEBLOWERS
TRACKING THE FLOCK OF AIPAC VULTURES
TRANSYLVANIA TRAVELERS IN ST. PAUL
CITIGROUP: VAMPIRES IN THE CITY
VAMPIRES IN THE VESTA INSURANCE GROUP
ZEROING IN ON ZURICH FINANCIAL SERVICES
# # #
MORE OF THE CATBIRD’S FAVORITE LINKS
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Originally posted August 27, 2006, by The Catbird
Last Update April 30, 2008