Lasky & Rifkind Ltd. Announces ERISA Class Action Lawsuit Against Marsh & McLennan

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 25, 2004--Lasky & Rifkind Ltd., a law firm with offices in New York and Chicago, filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") on October 22, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who, as of October 14, 2004, were participants in or beneficiaries of ("Participants") one or more of the retirement plans offered by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ("Marsh" or the "Company") (NYSE:MMC), including: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Stock Investment Plan ("SIP" or "401(k)"), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Stock Investment Supplemental Plan ("SISP"), and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Global Stock Purchase Plan ("Stock Purchase Plan"), and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. U.S. Retirement Program, including the Retirement Plan, Benefit Equalization Plan, and Supplemental Retirement Plan ("Retirement Plan"), all of which are collectively referred to herein as the "Plans". The lawsuit was filed against Marsh and certain fiduciaries of the Plans ("defendants").

Plaintiff alleges that defendants, fiduciaries of the Plans, breached their duties to Plaintiff and to the other Participants in the Plans, in violation of ERISA, particularly with regard to the Plans' holdings of Marsh stock. Each of the Plans maintained significant holdings in Marsh stock and/or required Participants' investments to be held, in whole or in part, in Marsh stock. For example, in the Company's SIP, Participants' investments were overwhelmingly limited to Company stock, all matching funds were in Company stock, and Participants were not permitted to meaningfully diversify their investments. Where Participants were permitted to diversify, they were substantially limited to investments in funds managed by Putnam Investments, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marsh.

The defendants acts were especially egregious given the Company's business practices. In order to make customers believe that Marsh had received "bids" from various insurance companies in attempt to get the lowest possible price and most favorable terms for the customer, Marsh "rigged" bids by asking certain insurance companies to bid higher than the company to which Marsh had already determined to steer the customer's business. Marsh's "bid rigging" schemes were not only in direct conflict of interest with Marsh's customers, but were fraudulent and illegal, and have opened the Company up to massive civil and criminal liability, lost future revenues, tarnished reputation, potential inability to borrow, and potential loss of customers.

For these reasons, defendants knew or should have known that Marsh stock was an imprudent investment alternative for the Plans due to the improper business practices at the Company and the overwhelming risk that the Plans assumed by holding Company stock in such large, concentrated amounts. Defendants are liable under ERISA to restore losses sustained by the Plans and Participants as a result of defendants' breaching their fiduciary obligations to (i) monitor the Company's administrators and to provide them with accurate information; (ii) provide complete and accurate information to the Participants; (iii) avoid conflicts of interest; and (iv) diversify Participants' investments.

If you were a participant in or beneficiary of any of the Plans as of October 14, 2004, or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact one of our representatives at or Leigh Lasky, Esq. at [phone], or email us at [e-mail].