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

Former Marsh executive William Gilman has filed a $60 million complaint against Eliot Spitzer and The Slate Group, LLC over an article Spitzer wrote for Slate that is, according to the complaint, “patently false and defamatory to [Gilman] in several respects.”

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

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

Spitzer contends in his Slate article, titled “They Still Don't Get It,”  that “deniers” are trying to “rewrite the narrative of the economic cataclysm we have lived through” by challenging the “common-sense conclusions that flow from an accurate understanding of history.”

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

The complaint references a few specific passages in Spitzer's article, including one that reads, “Unfortunately for the credibility of the [Wall Street Journal], the editorial fails to note the many employees of Marsh who have been convicted and sentenced to jail terms.”

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

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

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

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