Wow, AIG -- talk about brass balls. To be fair, they haven't yet decided to sue us for bailing them out after they nearly crashed our economy. But the fact that they're even considering it ... just ... wow. This is what it looks like when an entire corporation, maybe an entire class of people, pathologically lacks a sense of shame.

Also, note to self: contribute to Warren's re-election campaign.
Abhi Kris's profile photoCod Codliness's profile photoScott “marsroverdriver” Maxwell's profile photoJohn Nelson's profile photo
Yes, I agree with you that it is a douchebag move. But I also think that AIG should've failed. It didn't deserve to be bailed out. The government screwed the tax payers on that one. This is the hen coming to roost I guess.
I'm waiting for someone to take the "Thank You America" ad campaign they have been running and parody it with "Fuck You America". Hopefully, soon.
The actual situation is more complicated and nuanced than you are allowing for.  Fun to jump on a headline though.
+Scott Maxwell This appears to be a moot point since AIG is now saying they will not participate.  A legal mind would probably be able to do this more justice, but I'll give you my best effort.  First, the lawsuit already exists.  Former CEO Hank Greenberg was ousted well before the bailout and if my memory serves was AIG's largest shareholder prior to the bailout.  As an ousted CEO with a large stake, relations between Hank the management were and are rocky.  Hank's shares were owned through an entity called Starr International.  Starr International has already filed the lawsuit in court, as a shareholder, on behalf of AIG.  The government asked the courts to throw it out but the courts have allowed it to continue.  Here is where it gets fuzzy for me.  According to an AIG press release, they can either take the case over,allow Starr to bring the case on their behalf, or "refuse the demand and prevent the claims from being prosecuted by Starr" which they note Starr will likely challenge.  If they back out but Starr is allowed to proceed with the case and wins, AIG gets nothing.

Lastly, I think it is a mistake to blindly assume that the government executed the bailout properly and that it is outrageous at face value to question the terms with some hindsight.  It is in fact perfectly possible that mistakes were made.  The arguments as I understand them focus on two points.  First, AIG was excessively penalized because as part of their bailout, they were instructed to pay out the world's investment banks at par on credit derivatives.  This was loudly protested even at the time as a closet bailout of the banks, but it showed up as a bailout of AIG.  Most people agree that the counterparties would have accepted less, so AIG shareholders were forced to accept the cost of bailing out others.  Second, the 14% interest rate AIG was made to pay on loans from the government is being called punitive.  The Constitution requires the government to provide "just compensation" when taking private property.

In short, the political outrage (which I will describe as emotional rather than logical) forces AIG to back away from this case.  I suspect Starr will continue to pursue the case on its own, so it could still get interesting.   Hope that helps.
Add a comment...