No. The conclusion is the result of of logical operations and based on the evidence contained in the petiiton for summary judgement you presented. The evidence consisted of Gentile's speadsheet and the e-mails. Finegen's later denial can't negate that hard copy evidence.
"in order to assert that the Feilbogen and DeSantis contracts are comparable..."
I never made any such assertion. What I did assert, was that AIG was perfectly willing to break the contract Finegan had indeed verbally agreed to. In fact the evidence shows Finegan's denial was a lie. AIG chose to play games and ignore the evidence that Finegan lied in order to avoid paying. AIG justified this by attempting to assert that the contents of it's employee manual and at-will employment were the legal basis for the decision, instead of the content of CT statutes.
"I haven't seen any supporting evidence of a business/working relationship between the two men."
Energy is a commodity. From DeSantis's resignation note: "I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities."
You get the last word. The evidence doesn’t support you, and I wish I’d not replied to you in the first place.