American International Group, Inc. v. Greenberg
965 A.2d 763 | Court of Chancery of Delaware | 2009
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
AIG's top executives, led by CEO Maurice Greenberg, allegedly orchestrated widespread financial fraud that inflated the company's value by billions of dollars. Stockholders sued for breach of fiduciary duty, and the court rejected the executives' attempts to dismiss the case, finding credible allegations of intentional misconduct at the highest levels. This matters to subcontractors because it shows courts will hold company leadership personally liable for fraud—even when they claim broad indemnification protections—if evidence suggests they knowingly directed illegal accounting practices.
Key Takeaways
- •Broad indemnification clauses don't protect executives from personal liability when they actively direct or inspire fraudulent schemes
- •Courts scrutinize financial misstatements carefully; if you discover accounting irregularities at your client's company, document everything and consider legal advice
- •Upper management's close oversight of operations can backfire in litigation—it shows they knew about or controlled the misconduct rather than being unaware
A plausible inference arises that Greenberg and the Inner Circle Defendants themselves inspired and oversaw a business strategy premised in substantial part on the use of improper accounting.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a company executive hide behind indemnification if they personally directed fraudulent accounting?
No. This case shows that indemnification protections don't shield executives from personal liability when they actively orchestrated or inspired fraud. Courts will allow breach of fiduciary duty claims to proceed if there's credible evidence the executive knowingly directed illegal conduct. Document any suspicious accounting practices you observe and consult legal counsel.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.
Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.
Gilbert Texas Construction, L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
A CGL policy's contractual liability exclusion bars coverage for breach of contract claims when the insured's only liability arises from contractual obligations assumed in the underlying contract, and the insured-contract exception does not restore coverage.
The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
An insurance policy's additional insured endorsement covering injuries "caused, in whole or in part" by the named insured's acts requires proximate causation, not mere "but for" causation, and does not cover injuries caused solely by the additional insured's negligence.