I love the Court’s rationale summarized in the article as “The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said on Tuesday that Greenberg’s Starr International Co. lacked standing to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which chose not to sue.”
So the Court of Appeals ruled that the US Government (that seized control of AIG) would have had to decide to have AIG sue that same US Government for anyone with standing to raise the issue. Hard to see how that conclusion is different than possession is 9/10th of the law–except in the possession comment there is still a 10% chance the original owner may have a chance.
I love the Court’s rationale summarized in the article as “The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said on Tuesday that Greenberg’s Starr International Co. lacked standing to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which chose not to sue.”
So the Court of Appeals ruled that the US Government (that seized control of AIG) would have had to decide to have AIG sue that same US Government for anyone with standing to raise the issue. Hard to see how that conclusion is different than possession is 9/10th of the law–except in the possession comment there is still a 10% chance the original owner may have a chance.
Hank Greenberg, the walking lawsuit for many, many years.