Slashdot Mirror
AIG Contemplates Joining Stockholder Suit Against US Gov't
inode_buddha writes "After completing its bailout rescue and paying back the money with interest, AIG is considering suing the US Government for doing so. The reasons why? Among other things, the 14% interest rate paid to the government. '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." The former CEO and current major shareholder said: "The government has been saying, 'We're your friend, we owned and controlled you and we let you go.' But A.I.G. doesn't owe loyalty to the government," a person close to Mr. Greenberg said. "It owes loyalty to its shareholders."' The lawyer representing him is none other than David Boies of SCO fame."
For not putting any of the criminals responsible for the financial collpase in prison where they belong. Now those same criminals are suing the government. Sadly the US taxpayer will once again be on the hook for the payout.
They were perfectly free to reject the taxpayer bailout and look for money elsewhere.
Will someone put these motherfuckers against the wall and shoot them already?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
AIG was a risky investment. Anyone who would have invested in AIG at that time would expect a return that balanced that risk - that includes the taxpayers.
In rough numbers, it looks like brass scrap is going for about $2.33/lb. Given the big brass balls that AIG apparently possesses, they should never have needed any sort of bailout in the first place...
(And, incidentally, if that 14% interest rate was so crushingly unfair, where exactly were the private lenders willing to offer better rates and cut big, bad, Uncle Sam out of the picture?)
Now, I wasn't in favor of the bailouts to begin with. I'm generally in favor of deregulation, and the only way that deregulated businesses learn their lesson is to be allowed to crash and burn on their own. These guys should have paid the price for their failure to understand how to do business so that the stockholders and the boards would understand in the future that they cannot allow bozos to run their businesses.
However, AIG stockholders are still in the wrong here, despite the forced bailout. How can you say you might have made more money when your other option was collapse? It's clear that the interest rate was very high, but it was well within AIG's ability to pay it (obviously). And now, those stockholders are trying to double down. No way.
Of course, this case seems so absurd on the face of it, that I must be missing something. I'm probably going to see what the details are, but at this point, it is looking like funny business.
Fuck You, you greedy parasitic assholes.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The thing is though that it wasn't a waste of money. We got a stinking big profit out of it.
Not only that but we saved a metric fuckton of money on things like pension insurance, deposit insurance and unemployment benefits that we would have had to pay out if they had gone tits up.
This is particularly hilarious to me because AIG just started airing TV commercials giving themselves a nice big PR pat on the back for explicitly "paying back with interest".
The first 1-pager is Paulson's talking points for the bank. It basically confirms that he put a gun to all their heads. It says they must agree to take their cash, and that if they protested, then each bank's regulator would force them to take it anyway.
http://www.businessinsider.com/uncovered-tarp-docs-reveal-how-paulson-forced-banks-to-take-the-cash-2009-5
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
When AIG took on the deal, their stock price was crap. They expected that once they took the deal, which was the USG buying preferred stock, which pays dividends, that the stock price would fall and stay LOWER than the buy price until the USG's stocks were bought off from payment via dividends and cash buyback. This turned out NOT to be the case and the stock price went ABOVE what the USG bought it for. What AIG is crying about, is the fact that they had to buy back their OWN STOCK from the USG, which they had an option NOT TO TAKE, at the current market rate which was, surprise surprise, HIGHER than when it sold it to the USG. There's nothing to sue over here. It was a standard loan backed by the only asset that AIG had at the time: its own stock. No "property" was bought by the government, and the government's voting rights were limited by the wording of the purchase, even though it should have had a ridiculous amount of power with that large of a percentage of *PREFERRED STOCKS*.
A companies first and foremost responsibility is to it's customers, 2nd to it's employees and finally 3rd to it's shareholders.
Um, no. At least in Texas, the directors, officers, and employees owe fiduciary duties to the company (shareholders). The company owes nothing to the customers and employees outside of any contractual duties they assume and the general legal duties like ordinary care and non-discrimination. I assume it's the same in most other states.
(More than usual, this is not legal advice.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
What a bunch of ungrateful bastards.
AIG's stock had fallen 95% in a matter of months and the company was days away from bankruptcy. If 14 percent interest was so damn high, why the hell didn't they make the deal with the private investors that were willing to go with a lower rate than the feds?
Oh, that's right, because there weren't any.
I think their argument is full of shit. No one held a gun to their head, either when they made such piss poor decisions that got them into the mess they created or when they stood in line for the bailout. And I know that I will never see dollar one of the money they would be awarded in any lawsuit, so don't argue that you're doing this on my behalf.
Frankly, I already made my money. I bought it at the firesale for a buck a share, on the day when they were declared "too big to fail". At the moment I am writing this, those same shares are worth 35.50. AIG is just pissed off that they couldn't do the same thing, a point made by another poster here.
It wasn't taxed or inflated, it was borrowed at ~5% and then loaned out at 14%. it was pure profit for the government.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
I'd agree with you normally, but in this case the banks are completely wrong. They're criminal, in fact. Here's a little known fact: name almost any large "institutional" bank, chances are you'll be naming a bank that was and has been complicate in the on-going laundering of drug and terrorist money. Name ANY ONE. To the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. ILLEGAL in ANY jurisdiction and punishable by YEARS in federal PRISON. NOT ONE of these "institutional" bank's major presidents, CEOs, CFO's, board members, NONE OF THEM, have been made to answer for these crimes. Fines have been paid, a billion in the case of HSBC, probably the worst offender, but NO ONE human being has been made to answer for these offenses, some of them used to fund the killing of thousands of people. "Too big to fail" was Obama said, didn't he? The government is complicate, but they at least are the one institution that is at least paying lip service to justice. Seems to me that the banks are the ones doing the screwing.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
It's survived (so far) both G. W. Bush and Obama, for example, and that's probably as extreme a difference in ideology as you're likely to get.
For real? You think Bush and Obama are extremely different?
December 2008, Bush was gearing up to leave office and Obama was gearing up to enter office. Both proclaimed their support for the GM bailout:
From wikipedia:
December 12, 2008: General Motors stated that it was nearly out of cash, and may not survive past 2009. The U.S. Senate voted and strongly opposed any source of government assistance through a bailout bridge loan (originally worth $14 billion in emergency aid) which was aimed toward helping the struggling Big Three automakers financially, despite strong support from President George W. Bush and President-elect Barack Obama, along with some mild support from the Democratic and Republican political parties.
We could list the similarities for hours, right? Everything from the PATRIOT act, support for the TSA, the bailouts of private corporations, and countless billion dollars of government grants to private corporations that donated to campaigns, etc..
You are seeing differences where they don't exist simple because of who you are talking about, even though you arent labeling one side good and the other side bad. You have just demonstrated exactly what the GP was talking, simply pretending that one person is different than the other in spite of a lack of demonstrable evidence to suggest that it is actually the case.
"His name was James Damore."
The first 1-pager is Paulson's talking points for the bank. It basically confirms that he put a gun to all their heads. It says they must agree to take their cash, and that if they protested, then each bank's regulator would force them to take it anyway.
No. The banks jumped at the money but they and Paulson didn't want the public to panic if they found out how shaky the banks really were. So Paulson made up that BS story about forcing the banks to take the money.
Source
As time goes on, we're hearing more and more about the shenanigans that were done at the expense of the US taxpayer.
If by "forced," you mean "they were desperate for money but nobody would lend to them," then you would be right. AIG could have tried to issue some corporate bonds, but would you have been willing to buy them? Would you have purchased preferred stock? Would you have loaned them a single penny when they were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?
If the shareholders think the deal was bad, they should sue the executives who agreed to it. Of course, they all know that the only remaining alternative was to declare bankruptcy, so what this really is about is a greedy attempt to get even more money.
Palm trees and 8
"They", in this case, refers specifically to AIG, not banks in general. AIG wasn't a bank, it was an insurance company. It wasn't a part of the general program where the Fed forced banks to borrow money; it was a separate bailout that occurred prior to the bank forced-capitalization program.
AIG, was in a gigantic liquidity crisis and would have gone bankrupt in a couple of days due to inability to borrow money to pay the influx of claims from the Bear Stearns collapse, along with paying out on the default protection insurance they had written on $hitty mortgages. Nobody would lend money to them except for the feds.
And on a related note, what is this constant equation of shareholders to stakeholders. This is so common in the coorperate world nowadays it just plain sickening.
Quothe the article:
'"But A.I.G. doesn't owe loyalty to the government," a person close to Mr. Greenberg said. "It owes loyalty to its shareholders."'
No it doesn't. A large coorperation has many parties it relies on for it's very existance. The government being one of the more important ones. Without a government to back the financial markets or even guarantee a basic rule of law, none of your coveted shareholders would even think about investing in your sorry bank.
Never mind your employees, or your customers!
IMHO this is at the very root of this whole crisis, this very narrow perspective on responsability. Many famous leaders of industry in the past considered it as important to provide as many working people with a decent living as increasing the fortunes of a select few. These days it seems as CEO's and other corperate crooks only think about their own wallets and, if bothered about accountability, start jabbering about the shareholders only.
Makes me sick to my stomach, it really does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."