Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP Appointed Co-Lead Counsel and the State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment Appointed Co-Lead Plaintiff in Marsh McLennan Securities Fraud Litigation

The Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation involves an illicit scheme in which billions of dollars in kickbacks were improperly reported as revenues by the Company. The action is pending before the Hon. Shirley Wohl Kram, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. The defendants consist of the Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (“MMC”), Marsh Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of MMC), and certain of MMC’s officers and directors.

The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that defendants, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ("MMC" or "the Company"), Marsh Inc. (MMC's wholly-owned insurance brokerage subsidiary), Jeffrey W. Greenberg (MMC's former Chairman of the Board and CEO), and Roger E. Egan (Marsh Inc.'s former President and Chief Operating Officer) violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading statements about, inter alia: (i) the criteria that Marsh Inc. considered in making insurance placements for its clients; (ii) Marsh Inc.'s receipt of contingent comissions from various insurance companies purportedly in exchange for specific, enumerated services provided to those insurance companies; and (iii) Marsh Inc.'s disclosure to its clients of all contingent commissions it recevied in connection with the placement of the clients' insurance.

In fact, Plaintiffs allege that during the period of October 15, 1999 through and including October 14, 2004, Marsh Inc. routinely steered clients to those insurers with whom it had entered into favorable contingent commission agreements. As alleged by Plaintiffs, Marsh Inc.'s primary concern in structuring its clients' risk transfer and placement was the maximization of contingent commission revenue, irrespective of the risk profiles, requirements, and preferences of its clients. Thus, Marsh Inc. engaged in bid-rigging to ensure that policies were placed with insurance companies that had entered into contingent commissions agreements with the Company. Further, Plaintiffs allege that Marsh Inc. provided no legitimate market services in exchange for its receipt of contingent commissions, which were, in reality, nothing more than kickbacks for the placement of business with certain insurance companies. In addition, far from making complete and accurate disclosure of its receipt of contingent commissions in compliance with various regulatory and industry agreements governing disclosure, Plaintiffs allege that Marsh Inc. utilized a protocol designed to mislead clients about the contingent commissions it received in connection with the cilents' placement of insurance.

In connection with the proceedings initiated by the New York State Attorney General, Marsh has agreed to pay $850 million in restitution to its clients - the insurance purchasers - who were victimized in this scheme. No part of this fund, however, is to be used to compensate the purchasers of Marsh securities that were artificially inflated by the defendants' wrongful conduct.

The Lead Plaintiffs in the action are the State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment on behalf of itself and Common Pension Fund A, the DCP Equity Fund, and the Supplemental Annuity Fund (collectively, “New Jersey DOI ”) and the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Ohio, State Teachers’ Retirement System of Ohio, Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (collectively, “Ohio”).

The plaintiffs’ attorneys are led by Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, New Jersey’s selected counsel and the Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel, and Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Ohio’s selected counsel and the Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel.