AIG 2008 Annual Report Download - page 294

respect to the dismissal of the Employee Benefits Complaint. Plaintiffs previously appealed the dismissal of the
Commercial Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 10, 2007. Both
appeals are fully briefed and oral argument in both appeals has been tentatively scheduled for April 20, 2009.
A number of complaints making allegations similar to those in the Multi-district Litigation have been filed
against AIG and other defendants in state and federal courts around the country. The defendants have thus far been
successful in having the federal actions transferred to the District of New Jersey and consolidated into the Multi-
district Litigation. These additional consolidated actions are still pending in the District of New Jersey, but are
currently stayed pending a decision by the court on whether they will proceed during the appeal of the dismissal of
the Multi-district Litigation. On August 20, 2008, the District Court, however, granted plaintiff’s motion to lift the
stay in one tag-along matter and suggested that the case be remanded to the transferor court, and on November 26,
2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order remanding the case to the transferor court. The
AIG defendants have also sought to have state court actions making similar allegations stayed pending resolution of
the Multi-district Litigation proceeding. These efforts have generally been successful, although plaintiffs in one
case pending in Texas state court have moved to re-open discovery; a hearing on that motion was held on April 9,
2008. The court subsequently issued an order deferring a ruling on the motion until the Court holds a hearing on
defendants’ Special Exceptions. On January 9, 2009, the Court held a hearing on defendants’ Special Exceptions.
The hearing has not been completed and has been continued to April 3, 2009. AIG has settled several of the various
federal and state actions alleging claims similar to those in the Multi-district Litigation, including a state court
action pending in Florida in which discovery had been allowed to proceed.
Ohio Attorney General Action — Ohio Court of Common Pleas. On August 24, 2007, the Ohio Attorney
General filed a complaint in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas against AIG and a number of its subsidiaries, as well
as several other broker and insurer defendants, asserting violation of Ohio’s antitrust laws. The complaint, which is
similar to the Commercial Complaint, alleges that AIG and the other broker and insurer defendants conspired to
allocate customers, divide markets, and restrain competition in commercial lines of casualty insurance sold through
the broker defendant. The complaint seeks treble damages on behalf of Ohio public purchasers of commercial
casualty insurance, disgorgement on behalf of both public and private purchasers of commercial casualty insurance,
as well as a $500 per day penalty for each day of conspiratorial conduct. AIG, along with other co-defendants,
moved to dismiss the complaint on November 16, 2007. On June 30, 2008, the Court denied defendants’ motion to
dismiss. On August 18, 2008, defendants filed their answers to the complaint. Discovery is ongoing.
Action Relating to Workers’ Compensation Premium Reporting — Northern District of Illinois. On May 24,
2007, the National Workers’ Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the NWCRP), on behalf of its participant members,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AIG with respect to the
underpayment by AIG of its residual market assessments for workers’ compensation. The complaint alleges claims
for violations of RICO, breach of contract, fraud and related state law claims arising out of AIG’s alleged
underpayment of these assessments between 1970 and the present and seeks damages purportedly in excess of
$1 billion. On August 6, 2007, the court denied AIG’s motion seeking to dismiss or stay the complaint or, in the
alternative, to transfer to the Southern District of New York. On December 26, 2007, the court denied AIG’s motion
to dismiss the complaint. On March 17, 2008, AIG filed an amended answer, counterclaims and third-party claims
against the National Council on Compensation Insurance (in its capacity as attorney-in-fact for the NWCRP), the
NWCRP, its board members, and certain of the other insurance companies that are members of the NWCRP
alleging violations of RICO, as well as claims for conspiracy, fraud, and other state law claims. The counterclaim-
and third-party defendants filed motions to dismiss on June 9, 2008. On February 23, 2009, the Court issued a
decision and order sustaining AIG’s counterclaims and sustaining, in part, AIG’s third-party claims. The Court also
dismissed certain of AIG’s third-party claims without prejudice. The Court also has stayed the entire case pending a
ruling on AIG’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is scheduled for a ruling on June 10,
2009.
Action Relating to Workers’ Compensation Premium Reporting — Minnesota. On February 16, 2006, the
Attorney General of the State of Minnesota filed a complaint against AIG with respect to claims by the Minnesota
Department of Revenue and the Minnesota Special Compensation Fund, alleging that AIG made false statements
288 AIG 2008 Form 10-K
American International Group, Inc., and Subsidiaries
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)