You're watching...
Hank Greenberg’s attorney David Boies on efforts to appeal New York state’s financial fraud law.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
The David -- of the damned good lawyer yesterday we might have just gotten the proves because don't look now but the -- -- on behalf of Al Gore and Narnia one.
Has won appeals court hearing on a very different recall some say he cannot lose at issues on the global Martin -- -- that's it odd quirk in New York State law that allows l.'s attorneys general to go away after suspected corporate chicanery also -- a little more than -- -- Eliot Spitzer build a career on of the boys has gotten New York's Court of Appeals to at least hear the merits of -- -- now it's so.
It would be an enormous win for boys and his Spitzer targeted client.
That would be Hank Greenberg the former CEO of AIG.
So David you say you're the guy I -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- right I simply can't afford your -- -- but let's get we're gonna get to opt.
That that the state AG's office response and a second but.
This is an enormous -- I don't think people realize what a significant development that says what kinda case will you be presented.
Well one of the things we're going to be presenting is how.
And usual the mark -- activists.
The intermediate -- media -- -- court in New York which was to court to unanimously.
Sent -- To the Court of Appeals which of course is New York's highest court.
Held -- under the market.
You could take somebody to trial based entirely on hearsay evidence.
They -- -- unlike.
Every other.
Kind of prosecution or case against somebody that has to be decided.
Based on legitimate evidence.
That -- -- act.
You could come forward only with hearsay evidence.
That was enough to get should try.
That's -- and very usual hearing I think the intermediate appellate court recognized.
It was a period usually hearing -- felt compelled to make it.
Under established new York law.
But they also believed that it was right to reexamine haven't -- -- New York's highest court we -- -- deleted I do want -- we do we try to -- -- attorney general's office president and and that their response was this our -- is confident the Court of Appeals.
Will uphold -- lower court's decision we look forward to trying this case all the defendants accountable for perpetrating a major reinsurance scheme to defraud investors and let's.
Not -- hot spot spot but he thanks -- well that's jester that just certain repetitious.
This same tired arguments -- they've been making from the beginning remember that's what they -- when they brought this case that's her they've they've brought this case.
Alleging that AIG's.
Net income and shareholders' equity has been inflated by billions of dollars as the result improper accounting.
Those claims are all gone dismissed.
The only thing that's left are true technical accounting issues neither of which affected net income.
Or shareholder equity.
So data and you're an insider abuse -- so -- would not stupidity cheer but let's say you get.
Your -- -- dated real is part of the stupid stunt and it up.
It what does this mean for your client and in does he have any other litigation could face does this make anything that he had faced Null and void what.
Hi it's over.
This is the last.
Of the matters that are still open.
At -- federal civil suits not -- it could -- this civil suits are all over as well okay this is the last thing hanging out there as I say.
95%.
-- this is already been dismissed.
And it just these last two things and conduct and to talk about fraud.
-- it is is really kind of -- -- the what are the things that we're appealing.
It is that.
The attorney general's office argued in the trial court but they didn't have to prove.
That mr.
Greenberg.
Had any fraudulent intent it was a not if he was in control of the -- Racial how would that change future attorneys general behavior a lot of them and it -- get aggressive -- State's New York seems to be.
I -- this unique case in the Barnett is unique and in New York.
But stated that the -- and build on that -- to make a case that was bigger than the original one targeted by an attorney general so.
Will it give -- attorneys general pause that does the criticism will be they -- go the other way.
And not pursue action against clearly culpable individuals do you fear it could have the opposite effect on some -- I don't think so because we're not attacking and legitimate.
Securities prosecutions here what we're attacking.
Our prosecutions.
The -- do not involve.
Any requisite intent.
And are based entirely on hearsay evidence.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Present a case sort of pursuant case.
Then then just the hunch that something could be bad.
Exactly not and that's exactly what we're saying and that's exactly what we're asking the Court of Appeals to hold and if they do.
What -- report there really are going to do to bring in new York law.
In line with the -- most other states and this is an unusual.
Statute it's been used its usual ways.
And restoring.
New York to its.
I think proper place as a place where -- that everybody can depend on the rule of law I think it is an important step.
But it would be a career stopper for a lot of attorneys general.
Who an area they get interviews they use that as a launching pad for and grander things.
It would -- -- it would certainly change the New York attorney general's office here in New York.
No doubt about that.
David -- a real pleasure and an honor.
-- that's the quite a development quite a development kudos -- you.
