NU Online News Service, Aug. 22, 3:25 p.m.EDT

Former Marsh executive William Gilman has filed a $60 millioncomplaint against Eliot Spitzer and The Slate Group, LLC over anarticle Spitzer wrote for Slate that is, according to thecomplaint, “patently false and defamatory to [Gilman] in severalrespects.”

Spitzer's Aug. 22, 2010 article in Slate was a response to anearlier Wall Street Journal editorial that characterized ajudge's July 2010 decision to throw out the convictions of Gilmanand Edward McNenney as a defeat for then-Attorney General AndrewCuomo's office “on still another Spitzer-created prosecution.”

Gilman and McNenney were sentenced in 2008 to 90 days in jail and five yearsprobation on felony monopoly charges after an 11-month trialrelated to Spitzer's investigations into contingent commissionkickbacks. New York Supreme Court Judge James A. Yates threw out those convictions in July 2010, stating thatprosecutors failed to disclose evidence that would have impactedthe outcome of the case. Cuomo withdrew his appeal of that decision in Dec. 2010.

Spitzer contends in his Slate article, titled “They Still Don'tGet It,” that “deniers” are trying to “rewrite the narrativeof the economic cataclysm we have lived through” by challenging the“common-sense conclusions that flow from an accurate understandingof history.”

Gilman's complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of New York, accuses Spitzer of libel and takesissue with parts of the article that reference cases broughtagainst Marsh & McLennan. While the complaint notes thatSpitzer's article does not mention Gilman by name, it states, “ThatMr. Spitzer was referring to Mr. Gilman was certainly obvious to,and harmed Mr. Gilman in, the insurance industry and any other partof the public observing the events related to Marsh.”

The complaint references a few specific passages in Spitzer'sarticle, including one that reads, “Unfortunately for thecredibility of the [Wall Street Journal], the editorialfails to note the many employees of Marsh who have been convictedand sentenced to jail terms.”

Gilman's complaint counters, “Contrary to Mr. Spitzer'sstatements, no Marsh employees were sentenced to jail terms,particularly not Mr. Gilman as all of the charges against him weredismissed or vacated.” It adds that Spitzer was “well aware of theoutcomes” of other cases against Marsh employees that were resolvedwith dismissals or sentences of an unconditional discharge.

The complaint adds that Spitzer was incorrect in asserting thatMarsh's behavior of “price-fixing, bid-rigging, and kickbacks” was“a blatant abuse of law,” since criminal allegations against Marshand Gilman resulted in acquittals, dismissals or unconditionaldischarges.

“There was nothing illegal about any of the actions alleged bythe New York Attorney General,” the complaint says, adding that theattorney general in early 2010 even granted Marsh permission to usecontingent commissions again.

According to the complaint, Spitzer's article has caused Gilmanto suffer economic injury and damage to his reputation. Thecomplaint seeks compensatory damages of at least $10 million,general damages of at least $20 million and punitive damages of atleast $30 million, plus costs, interest and attorney fees.