THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE WHOLE TRUE STORY HAS SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY.I CONGRATUATE MR. GREENBERG FOR ALL HE HAS DONE AND IS DOING FOR THE SHARE HOLDERS WHO LOST SO MUCH. MANY THANKS AGAIN.
You have to love all the thumb-down votes. Nay to “the whole true story”! Nay I say! We don’t want the truth; it gets in the way of hating AIG and Hank Greenberg.
The most intelligent strategic decision the Govt could make in this case is to reach a settlement with the Plaintiffs as soon as possible, and at all costs, before Judge Wheeler is compelled to issue the judgment and order in the case. If not, Mr. Boies established compelling grounds for the entry of a judgment for the plaintiffs, and did not neglect proofs on damages. It will certainly be in the best interests of the American Public, and promote confidence in the financial sector and the U.S. institutions involved in to avoid the emergence of any judicial precedent in this area of constitutional law.
Few can doubt the importance that was attached to the Fed being able to dictate the use of proceeds of the advances made to AIG. But, there was absolutely no basis of the Govt to acquire and control 80% of the equity of the Company to do so. Its one thing for the Govt to provide financial support for manufacturing, etc., but it is not appropriate from Treasury to secure control over the financial institutions they are charged with regulating. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for the FAA to acquire a controlling interest in a major airline. And, few doubt that the Govt leaders involved were doing their utmost to protect the economy and serve the best interests of the American Public. But, those considerations do not change the fact that the Govt had no business demanding equity in AIG when they were doing everything they could to solicit, and indeed compel AIG to follow a particular course of action at the time to promote market stability over the interests of AIG’s shareholders. Its an impossible and entirely unacceptable position and the Plaintiffs have more than sufficiently established that the Govt, and its lawyers knew the choice to do so was imprudent on its face. It appears that, under the emergent circumstances they were dealing with, they did not meaningfully consider alternative ways of structuring the funding to ensure an optimal use of proceeds to secure the purposes of promoting market stability. In this environment, the interpretation that they went ahead with the take over, even circumventing the shareholder vote, for purely pragmatic and political reasons as the most expedient solution at the time is unequivocal and readily apparent from the record in the case. Moreover, everyone involved knew full well that the Fed Govt’s mortgage financing policies could not have been implemented without the role of financial institutes like AIG, and in fact, would have been almost impossible to implement without the services provided by AIG. There is no reason to hold the shareholders of AIG accountable for the consequences of a mortgage financing policy when neither the shareholders nor the management of any other financial institute is to be held accountable. In fact, the shareholders of AIG are due the value of their shares determined as of a time certain, for the Govt had every ability to establish an escrow process over the disposition of loan proceeds to ensure no funds were misused for appropriated for purposes not in the best interest of the American Public. Certainly, we should also recall the perturbations and convulsions that occurred over executive compensation during the course of the events in the immediate aftermath of the Bear Stearns bankruptcy filing.
Nothing could be worse than the Govt failing to take the initiative to settle the case and getting it consummated before Judge Wheeler issues what is certainly likely to be a blistering decision and rebuke of the Board of Governers, and the principals and professional involved in concocting the scheme that effectively confiscated 80% of the wealth of the holdings of AIG’s shareholders as a condition of the loans.
Moreover, it would be in the interests of the Plaintiffs to reach such a settlement as well, so long as the terms of the settlement are well designed and implemented.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE WHOLE TRUE STORY HAS SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY.I CONGRATUATE MR. GREENBERG FOR ALL HE HAS DONE AND IS DOING FOR THE SHARE HOLDERS WHO LOST SO MUCH. MANY THANKS AGAIN.
You have to love all the thumb-down votes. Nay to “the whole true story”! Nay I say! We don’t want the truth; it gets in the way of hating AIG and Hank Greenberg.
The most intelligent strategic decision the Govt could make in this case is to reach a settlement with the Plaintiffs as soon as possible, and at all costs, before Judge Wheeler is compelled to issue the judgment and order in the case. If not, Mr. Boies established compelling grounds for the entry of a judgment for the plaintiffs, and did not neglect proofs on damages. It will certainly be in the best interests of the American Public, and promote confidence in the financial sector and the U.S. institutions involved in to avoid the emergence of any judicial precedent in this area of constitutional law.
Few can doubt the importance that was attached to the Fed being able to dictate the use of proceeds of the advances made to AIG. But, there was absolutely no basis of the Govt to acquire and control 80% of the equity of the Company to do so. Its one thing for the Govt to provide financial support for manufacturing, etc., but it is not appropriate from Treasury to secure control over the financial institutions they are charged with regulating. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for the FAA to acquire a controlling interest in a major airline. And, few doubt that the Govt leaders involved were doing their utmost to protect the economy and serve the best interests of the American Public. But, those considerations do not change the fact that the Govt had no business demanding equity in AIG when they were doing everything they could to solicit, and indeed compel AIG to follow a particular course of action at the time to promote market stability over the interests of AIG’s shareholders. Its an impossible and entirely unacceptable position and the Plaintiffs have more than sufficiently established that the Govt, and its lawyers knew the choice to do so was imprudent on its face. It appears that, under the emergent circumstances they were dealing with, they did not meaningfully consider alternative ways of structuring the funding to ensure an optimal use of proceeds to secure the purposes of promoting market stability. In this environment, the interpretation that they went ahead with the take over, even circumventing the shareholder vote, for purely pragmatic and political reasons as the most expedient solution at the time is unequivocal and readily apparent from the record in the case. Moreover, everyone involved knew full well that the Fed Govt’s mortgage financing policies could not have been implemented without the role of financial institutes like AIG, and in fact, would have been almost impossible to implement without the services provided by AIG. There is no reason to hold the shareholders of AIG accountable for the consequences of a mortgage financing policy when neither the shareholders nor the management of any other financial institute is to be held accountable. In fact, the shareholders of AIG are due the value of their shares determined as of a time certain, for the Govt had every ability to establish an escrow process over the disposition of loan proceeds to ensure no funds were misused for appropriated for purposes not in the best interest of the American Public. Certainly, we should also recall the perturbations and convulsions that occurred over executive compensation during the course of the events in the immediate aftermath of the Bear Stearns bankruptcy filing.
Nothing could be worse than the Govt failing to take the initiative to settle the case and getting it consummated before Judge Wheeler issues what is certainly likely to be a blistering decision and rebuke of the Board of Governers, and the principals and professional involved in concocting the scheme that effectively confiscated 80% of the wealth of the holdings of AIG’s shareholders as a condition of the loans.
Moreover, it would be in the interests of the Plaintiffs to reach such a settlement as well, so long as the terms of the settlement are well designed and implemented.