• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AIG considers joining suit against the Fed for bailout...

P

postaled

Senior member
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/aig-considers-suing-us-government.html


Free from its $182 billion millstone — and damn proud of it — American International Group must now decide whether to chew off the giant hand that kept it fed by joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government. According to former CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and his complaint, "The government is not empowered to trample shareholder and property rights even in the midst of a financial emergency." Because of the bailout's "punitive" interest rate, the suit claims the U.S. violated the Fifth Amendment, which protects private property from "public use, without just compensation."
 
Must feel nice to take billions of dollars and then pay the same quantity of dollars back when they're worth less per unit.

But, such is the american economy.
 
airdata said:
Must feel nice to take billions of dollars and then pay the same quantity of dollars back when they're worth less per unit.

But, such is the american economy.
Click to expand...

You forgot to add "and then bite the hand that feeds".
 
postaled said:
Because of the bailout's "punitive" interest rate, the suit claims the U.S. violated the Fifth Amendment, which protects private property from "public use, without just compensation."
Click to expand...

I thought that the interest rate was only 9%?

9% interest to an effectively bankrupt company doesn't seem punitive to me.

If they could get a lower rate elsewhere why didn't they?
 
AIG wasn't punished, it was preserved.

OK, let's give them their 25 billion and take the bailout money provided out in cash in one lump sum plus prevailing interest rates.

Now that's fair.
 
nehalem256 said:
I thought that the interest rate was only 9%?

9% interest to an effectively bankrupt company doesn't seem punitive to me.

If they could get a lower rate elsewhere why didn't they?
Click to expand...

They couldn't and that's why they accepted and also what makes this so ridiculous.
 
I highly doubt AIG will join the suit.

Greenberg is just an angry old man who would have complained about the substandard accommodations of the last life raft leaving the Titanic.
 
I think the better question is if they do join the suit can we use their recent commercial as evidence against them?

I mean how can you thank someone for loaning you money and then sue them for having done so?
 
I don't know if it mattered to the shareholders between what they have now and bankruptcy. The stock is down about 97% in the last 5 yrs. The AIG bailout helped the other Wall Street firms more than AIG itself.
 
JTsyo said:
I don't know if it mattered to the shareholders between what they have now and bankruptcy. The stock is down about 97% in the last 5 yrs. The AIG bailout helped the other Wall Street firms more than AIG itself.
Click to expand...

My heart bleeds, really it does.
 
I think they have every right to sue us after we bailed them out with 180 Billion dollars of taxpayer money.
 
Gawd. Whatever shareholders ended up with, it's a helluva lot more than they'd have received w/o the bailout, which would have been zero.

It's also a helluva lot better for all the people who had retirement accounts with AIG.

All the "Free Market!" types justify profit on the basis of risk. AIG's London derivatives traders took enormous risks that paid off handsomely, until the scam collapsed... funny how that works.
 
I sense something here, unanimous disdain for suing after being saved from bankrupcy.

I think it's absurd shareholders would sue after having their investments saved from zero to something.

I feel like they are suing me, since it was my money.
 
lotus503 said:
I sense something here, unanimous disdain for suing after being saved from bankrupcy.

I think it's absurd shareholders would sue after having their investments saved from zero to something.

I feel like they are suing me, since it was my money.
Click to expand...


This is something that everyone on all sides should be angered over.

Go fuck yer self, AIG...
 
I'm not usually one for retaliatory legal action, but you know what, in this case, fuck it. If AIG decides to go through with it, and they haven't yet so let's keep that in mind but if they do drop the fucking hammer on them. Start a little competition in the justice department to see who can fuck AIG the hardest. Anti-trust? Absolutely. Let's make sure they aren't too big to fail anymore (hell we should do this one anyway). Subpoena every piece of company correspondence they have internally and go over it with a fine-toothed comb and prosecute every infraction they can find, no matter how minor. In particular criminal conduct; lock as many of them up as you can. Let's get the IRS in on it and have a full audit too. Basically use the legal system to torch the company to the ground, make the stock so toxic that there won't be any shareholders left to be loyal to.

Then, maybe next time a company will think twice before deciding to fuck around so badly that they destroy the economy, have to be bailed out by the taxpayers they just screwed, and then have the gal to try and sue the people who saved their ass.
 
I've read up on this today and this all seems to be ex-CEO Hank Greenberg's fault. As a large shareholder they have to at least entertain this request of his.
 
yllus said:
I've read up on this today and this all seems to be ex-CEO Hank Greenberg's fault. As a large shareholder they have to at least entertain this request of his.
Click to expand...

He's also the man who let AIGFP get so out of control. The people running AIG now have no interest in persuing this but they're obligated to look at it. The odds that he'll prevail in court are pretty slim.
 
Jhhnn said:
Gawd. Whatever shareholders ended up with, it's a helluva lot more than they'd have received w/o the bailout, which would have been zero.

It's also a helluva lot better for all the people who had retirement accounts with AIG.

All the "Free Market!" types justify profit on the basis of risk. AIG's London derivatives traders took enormous risks that paid off handsomely, until the scam collapsed... funny how that works.
Click to expand...


They should of gone out of business along with every other rotten bank and wall street firm who bet big on the housing bubble because capitalism needs failure to flush out the turds like AIG. This was one of the main arguments being made by those who were AGAINST the bailouts to begin with and wanted the market to sanitize itself by allowing FAILURE rather then have government move in and bail these assholes out using tax payer dollars.


And guess what that bailout was pretty much a nice little money making racket for banks as reported by Matt Tabi.

Secrets and Lies of the Bailout
The federal rescue of Wall Street didn’t fix the economy – it created a permanent bailout state based on a Ponzi-like confidence scheme. And the worst may be yet to come.
Click to expand...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/secret-and-lies-of-the-bailout-20130104

However this news item is a great piece of irony for those like yourself who supported government intervention. I can see why you're so upset about AIG potentially turning around and biting the hand that kept it alive at tax payer expense because it demonstrates how flawed that course of actions was to begin with and how unintended consequences are evolving do because of government bailing these firms out.
 
Last edited:
This case shows why we shouldn't have big government and government getting involved with corporations. The banks should never have been bailed out but allowed to fail, they made risky decisions and the government played a huge role in forcing them to give out loans. By bailing out these banks they wont learn anything and they will just do it again and it will be even worse. The government is not suppose to be picking winners and losers, that is the job of the market.

As well bailing out the banks only made the situation worse because the debt was dumped on the American taxpayers.

Its funny how supporters of big government are angry at this case, this was bound to happen and I am not surprised by this, when the government gets involved with this then they make it worse.

As well where is the blame for the people who took on mortgages they knew they couldn't afford and then ditched them, these people need to be responsible which they clearly weren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top