By the way, this lawyer was the one on the election of 2000 who lost when Bush beat Gore. Thank God the Supreme Court didn’t install Gore as President.
“Even so, the ruling solidifies Boies’s reputation for winning long-shot cases, said Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. It’s “another notch, one of those signature victories.””
Victory? This was called a victory? If this is victory I would hate to see what defeat looks like. I assume the law firm was working on a contingency. I assume Hank had nothing at risk other than the 30%+ contingency the law form would have taken had they won a judgment. How much did the law firm pay to litigate the suit? How much are they out? Victory? With victories like this, I don’t ever want to win. The one thing this case did do however, is guarntee next time AIG implodes the government will step back and watch them sink. Which is good.
Agreed. People have lost their minds. The only thing you can win in the court of federal claims is money damages. Boies got nothing, ergo, he did not win. I don’t understand why this is a win. Any other lawyer and this would have been trumpeted by the media as a waste of time and social resources. Let us see what happens on appeal, but I cannot see the Federal Circuit treating Boies to 28 billion.
What Boies argued that AIG was charged a higher interest rate than other financial entities that were “bailed” out by the USA and its taxpayers.
So what? AIG was saved, not damaged by the action.
It was AIG and co -conspirators that caused its meltdown and almost collapse of the US Economy. AIG execs knowingly “insured” fraudulent “default credit swaps.” If you want to read about the fraudulent transactions, read Mike Lewis’s book “The Big Short.”
How does one win the case, but collect nothing?
By the way, this lawyer was the one on the election of 2000 who lost when Bush beat Gore. Thank God the Supreme Court didn’t install Gore as President.
“Even so, the ruling solidifies Boies’s reputation for winning long-shot cases, said Erik Gordon, a professor at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. It’s “another notch, one of those signature victories.””
Victory? This was called a victory? If this is victory I would hate to see what defeat looks like. I assume the law firm was working on a contingency. I assume Hank had nothing at risk other than the 30%+ contingency the law form would have taken had they won a judgment. How much did the law firm pay to litigate the suit? How much are they out? Victory? With victories like this, I don’t ever want to win. The one thing this case did do however, is guarntee next time AIG implodes the government will step back and watch them sink. Which is good.
Agreed. People have lost their minds. The only thing you can win in the court of federal claims is money damages. Boies got nothing, ergo, he did not win. I don’t understand why this is a win. Any other lawyer and this would have been trumpeted by the media as a waste of time and social resources. Let us see what happens on appeal, but I cannot see the Federal Circuit treating Boies to 28 billion.
Dave, to me, this sounds like Obama saying Obamacare is a great success and exceeded his wildest dreams.
What Boies argued that AIG was charged a higher interest rate than other financial entities that were “bailed” out by the USA and its taxpayers.
So what? AIG was saved, not damaged by the action.
It was AIG and co -conspirators that caused its meltdown and almost collapse of the US Economy. AIG execs knowingly “insured” fraudulent “default credit swaps.” If you want to read about the fraudulent transactions, read Mike Lewis’s book “The Big Short.”