This is an empty claim.
Ditto. (This also applies to the several other times you repeated the same claim.)
Ironically, the government lost billions of dollars on the auto bailouts, while it made billions on the AIG bailout.
The fact that you’ve evidently confused Hank Greenberg with Jack Welch does not speak well of your grasp of the facts here.
It should also be noted that Greenberg was opposed to the bailout at the time - it’s not a matter of forgetting how bad it was, in his case at least.
Point of fact AIG did and does have a lot of going concern value in its property and casualty insurance businesses. Most of the problem was caused by AIG Financial Products insuring half a trillion in credit default swaps, but that is just one division of the company.
Unless the government specifically applied coercive (i.e. judicial/executive) leverage unavailable to other market actors, I don’t readily see the problem in that. Far as I know, TARP didn’t involve tanks rolling down Wall Street or contracts signed at gunpoint (or even under threat of judicial action).
To put it another way, if your company threatens to go belly up and the only offers to buy it up come from sharks negotiating on their unilateral terms, well, that’s business for you (particularly in America ! :)). If you don’t like the terms, you can just go belly up. But if you take the offer, you don’t really get to protest or rescind it later, and certainly not after the new management has successfully pulled your company from the brink.
That still sounds to me like the cows protesting that they didn’t get to eat as much of the Commons as they were going to. Well, yes, maybe, but then again that was kind of the idea.
Yes. So ? Nobody owes you a profit.
If the company you’ve invested in goes tits up, or does less well than you wanted/expected/planned, well, them’s the breaks. That’s the stock market for you. Just like in the casino, you can quit any time you like, buddy.
But if you do keep your shares, you tacitly approve the direction the company takes and endorse the risks, and tacitly imply your trust that share price will improve. You’re not doing this out of the goodness of your heart. And you don’t get to whinge post-factum that you only went into it expecting so-and-so dollars out of buying/keeping the shares, much less sue anyone over it (unless it was specifically promised to you when you bought the shares).
The exception would be when someone has just taken your money and ran I suppose, but that’s hardly the case here.
THIS JUST IN: At the urging of its shareholders, AIG has dropped out of the lawsuit.
That’s pretty much what this lawsuit is alleging.
I have no idea if this claim is correct, of course, but that’s the claim, in any event.
I don’t know what this means, in context.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You seem to be propounding a new and original tort theory.
Under what’s generally accepted as law, if you own shares in a company and someone else damages that company such that the value of your shares declines, you can use the reduced value of your shares as the basis of a claim for damages. That doesn’t mean you can sue for any and all declines in share price - it depends on what the other guy did. But the point is that the defendent can’t use the fact that you could have sold your shares at the reduced price and no one guaranteed you a profit as a defense against this type of claim. And absent that, I can’t see what your point is here.
My understanding is that this weakens the case, but I’m guessing it will proceed without AIG.
Bwuh ? The shareholders are initiating the lawsuit, but they also don’t want the company itself to be a part of it ? Talk about schyzophrenic :).
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
I don’t know what this means, in context.
[/quote]
It means that they seem to be saying “if the high risk/high reward practices of AIG - or another market actor interested in buying it out when it was neck deep in the khaki - had been allowed to continue as usual we would have made more money than with the more prudent direction those government fascists imposed (provided the economy recovered the same way it did, naturally - hardly a given)”.
Which may or may not be factually correct (hard to tell, considering the “high risk” part) - but since the whole point of the government assuming direct control was to put the breaks on these irresponsible practices before they led to an even more inextricable meltdown, it does look to me like somebody has lost the plot.
And that would be relevant if the government had been the cause of the reduced value of shares - but it wasn’t. The value of shares strictly increased over the government’s tenure. If tort proceedings over loss of share value have a place in this mess, ISTM they should be leveraged at AIG’s former leadership, not the post-bailout one.
Can you really sue over share value not increasing *enough *?
I think you are confusing your fucktards. The grounds would be that Greenberg put AIG in the vulnerable position in the first place.
OK.
I don’t think anyone is actually saying what you say they “seem to be saying”, so this whole point is not relevant.
If someone would be saying that, then I would agree with you.
Yes, I’m pretty sure you can. Like anything else, for example if your classic auto increases in value over time but less than it would have had I not put a dent in the fender.
What you get in such cases with stocks is a lot of experts putting all sorts of statistical analyses purporting to show what the price would have been absent such-and-such action.
Although in this case it’s a bit simpler, because the suit challenges the government issuing a lot of stock to themselves, which diluted the value of the shares of other shareholders by a recognizable amount.
If AIG’s problems only affected AIG, you’d have a point, but they deeply affected the whole country. The government just did its job by stepping in and protecting the interests of all Americans (for whom it’s responsible, remember;)).
Apparently the government’s abilities to take from some people in order to help the country as a whole is limited under the Constitution. That’s at the crux of this lawsuit.
As luck would have it, I happen to be doing some consulting for AIG so I get the company-wide Bob Benmosche emails.
There seems to be a bit of confustion here regarding the lawsuit:
The lawsuit was brought against the government by ex-AIG CEO Greenburg and his company Starr International, which owns a 12% stake in AIG. The AIG board of directors (i.e. the people elected to run AIG) met to review the merits of the lawsuit (as they are legally obligated to do) and have decided to not pursue the case, nor allow Star International to pursue it.
Of course it’s easy to see why the story was presented as “AIG considering lawsuit”, given the histrionics of certain people.
How can the AIG board forbid Starr International from continuing to pursue their (already filed) lawsuit? They can, and did, decide not to JOIN said lawsuit, but no story I’ve read has said that they can end an existing lawsuit of which they are (by their choice today) not a party.
If the gov’t is constitutionally prevented from saving everyone else from the worst excesses of a few, there isn’t much point in having a gov’t.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know by what legal mechanism they would do so. But to me it seems impractical to file a politically unpopular lawsuit against the US Government on behalf of the shareholders of a company whose board of directors oppose it.
This article provides a copy of Benmoche’s statement:
Ahhh:
So AIG can say that, but whether or not they can enforce it is another matter. Additionally, I believe at one of the suits is for Starr itself. I don’t think AIG can block that one at all.
I think these are the same thing. Starr’s standing to sue is only in its capacity as AIG shareholder.
Essentially it’s a shareholder lawsuit that does not have the backing of the company. I wouldn’t think that would automatically kill the suit - shareholder can sue the BOD of their own company (there are law firms which specialize in these suits) - but apparently it does hurt its chances.
Jon Stewart strikes again! (Segment starts 4:30 in.)
If you’re basing that on fiduciary malfeasance then there will be about 530 politicians there to greet them. It was Congress that approved the derivative financial instruments used to back up the federally backed mortgages.
Works for me!
I suspect that’s the cause of the “setting the stage for a fresh legal fight between Greenberg and the company.” part of the article.