In late 2008 through 2009, the US government loaned billions and billions to companies that were “too big to fail” to keep them afloat. Most of the money has been paid back by now, and most of the companies were grateful for the help except apparently AIG, who now wants to sue the US government because the bailout “cheated AIG shareholders”.
The board of A.I.G. will meet on Wednesday to consider joining a $25 billion shareholder lawsuit against the government, court records show. The lawsuit does not argue that government help was not needed. It contends that the onerous nature of the rescue — the taking of what became a 92 percent stake in the company, the deal’s high interest rates and the funneling of billions to the insurer’s Wall Street clients — deprived shareholders of tens of billions of dollars and violated the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private property for “public use, without just compensation.”
Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chief executive, who remains a major investor in the company, filed the lawsuit in 2011 on behalf of fellow shareholders. He has since urged A.I.G. to join the case, a move that could nudge the government into settlement talks.
The choice is not a simple one for the insurer. Its board members, most of whom joined after the bailout, owe a duty to shareholders to consider the lawsuit. If the board does not give careful consideration to the case, Mr. Greenberg could challenge its decision to abstain.
Should Mr. Greenberg snare a major settlement without A.I.G., the company could face additional lawsuits from other shareholders. Suing the government would not only placate the 87-year-old former chief, but would put A.I.G. in line for a potential payout.
Yet such a move would almost certainly be widely seen as an audacious display of ingratitude. The action would also threaten to inflame tensions in Washington, where the company has become a byword for excessive risk-taking on Wall Street.
Some government officials are already upset with the company for even seriously entertaining the lawsuit, people briefed on the matter said. The people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that without the bailout, A.I.G. shareholders would have fared far worse in bankruptcy.
“On the one hand, from a corporate governance perspective, it appears they’re being extra cautious and careful,” said Frank Partnoy, a former banker who is now a professor of law and finance at the University of San Diego School of Law. “On the other hand, it’s a slap in the face to the taxpayer and the government.”
- yourfleshmeansmorethanyou likes this
- d34d1n51d3 reblogged this from iheartchaos
- apolloslostcargo likes this
- weretheoneswhocantsleepatnight likes this
- hellyeahvan reblogged this from iheartchaos
- celeste-boldlygoes reblogged this from iheartchaos and added:
- the-last-gunslinger reblogged this from iheartchaos
- beautifulnihilism reblogged this from iheartchaos
- vasisdas likes this
- vasisdas reblogged this from iheartchaos
- iheartchaos posted this