A proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 has been published on the website of the Allianz Group, one of the world’s largest insurers, in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting.
(PRWEB) May 2, 2005 — Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence.
The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria.
The text of the shareholder proposal, which may also be viewed at the Allianz website, http://www.allianzgroup.com/azgrp/dp/cda/0,,100646-49,00.html , is reproduced below.
Countermotion (Shareholder Proposal) to the General Meeting of Allianz AG to be held May 4th, 2005
From Shareholder: John-Paul Leonard, P.O. Box 126, Joshua Tree, California 92252
Re: Agenda Item 3, Approval of the actions of the members of the Board of Management, I propose that approval not be granted.
Re: Agenda Item 4, Approval of the actions of the members of the Supervisory Board, I likewise propose that approval not be granted.
Reasoning:
The managing and supervisory boards have taken a passive attitude toward the insurance claims and the suspicious aspects of the WTC insurance loss.
The investigation of insurance losses and insurance damage claims against the Company is naturally one of the chief duties of the management of every insurance firm.
The WTC catastrophe was doubtless one of the biggest insurance incidents in history. A significant portion of the multi-billion dollar loss is expected to be borne by Allianz.
Numerous observers and researchers find the WTC case very suspicious. For example, in a public opinion survey, 49.3% of respondents in New York City agreed that “some of our leaders knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.” [Source: www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855 .]
When this belief is so widespread among unrelated parties, haven’t the affected insurance companies ever asked whether perhaps the US Government instead of the insurers is responsible for the damages, or whether the possibility of insurance fraud has been investigated?
From reports in the media about the trial in New York between the insurers and the insured WTC leaseholder, no sign of such motions has been made public. The dispute has been mainly over the question, whether to pay out $7 billion or “only” $3 billion, whereby the shareholders are supposed to be relieved at the latter sum as a victory of the “lesser of two evils.”
Nor has there been any lack of critical and analytical voices in Germany. Several books in the last few years have posed sharp questions to the official WTC scenario. In 2003, Deutsche Welle published an article entitled, “9/11 Conspiracy Theory Books Dominate Debate at Frankfurt Book Fair.” (www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,993523,00.html .)
Anyone who is interested can quickly obtain similar materials from the Internet free of charge, as well as continuing researches of the background of 9/11 by independent journalists.
Two German-American writers, Jim Hoffman (www.wtc7.net) and Eric Hufschmid, have contributed greatly to the theory of the dynamiting of the Twin Towers and Building WTC-7. Hufschmid’s work was translated and published in German ( www.painfulquestions.de ). They claim that never in history has the structure of a steel building ever been destroyed by fire, and that on the contrary, the evidence points to a controlled demolition. I could find no evidence to gainsay their thesis anywhere.
WTC-7, as is well-known, was never struck by airplanes, and photographs of it show only insignificant fires ( www.globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523 ). Nevertheless, the 47-story building at WTC 7 suddenly collapsed at around 17:28 on 9/11/2001. This fact was not even mentioned in the report of the official 9/11 commission. (www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf )
How can an insurer take such an extreme case simply and casually as business as usual?
There is plenty more such evidence that would be useful in the billion-dollar lawsuit, which every citizen with an Internet connection can confirm. Why aren’t Allianz (and the other insurers) able to?
When the managing and supervisory boards take no action to join the investigation of a case as huge and notorious as the WTC, how are the shareholders to know that other cases, too, for whatever reason, are not paid out without being properly investigated?
There is already a private lawsuit against US government officials in connection with the events of 9/11, see http://www.911forthetruth.com .
