Opinion ID: 1225642
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Financial Times

Text: The Financial Times ( FT ) ran articles on the contingent commissions story: Aon Set to Disclose Fees, March 16, 1999; and Consolidation at Relentless Pace, April 28, 2000. (J.A. 233-36.) The March 1999 article appeared at page thirty-three. (J.A. 233.) This article noted that both Marsh and Aon took steps to disclose to clients their contingent commission revenue after brokers had come under fire for receiving millions of dollars in fees and incentives from insurance underwriters in addition to the payments they receive from clients. According to the article, Marsh and Aonwhich had become the dominant brokerages as a result of consolidation in the global broking industrywere clearly anxious to avoid criticism from regulators, especially after the New York State Insurance Department [in 1998] said lack of transparency over broker remuneration could be construed as a violation of the state's insurance law. The April 2000 articlewhich appeared at page threeis similar to the FT article discussed above, to the point of repeating verbatim many of the same phrases. The article also referred to brokers' receipt of incentive payments as double dipping, which, according to the article, called into question the principle that customers should receive `best advice' and raised doubts over conflict of interest. (J.A. 235-36.) The Hartford was not mentioned in the article.