Top Law Schools

Is it just me, or is this disgusting?

wut

AIG decided not to sue the federal government. It did, however, file suit against the Fed Reserve (a quasi-governmental organization) if that's what you mean.

InGoodFaith wrote:wut

AIG decided not to sue the federal government. It did, however, file suit against the Fed Reserve (a quasi-governmental organization) if that's what you mean.

Glad it decided not to. It just made me sick with I hear it was suing the US, but I didn't hear about it not suing.

LaBarrister wrote:Is it just me, or is this disgusting?

Just you.

if they had a case, i can't say i'd find it "disgusting." fiduciary duty to the shareholder, etc.

I find it kind of disgusting. They took billions in taxpayer money and are complaining about having to pay it back. If the government insisted on giving away that kind of money I'd much rather it have been put in the hands of common people. I don't have any respect for whining millionaires.

eric922 wrote:I find it kind of disgusting. They took billions in taxpayer money and are complaining about having to pay it back. If the government insisted on giving away that kind of money I'd much rather it have been put in the hands of common people. I don't have any respect for whining millionaires.

skip biglaw then.

IAFG wrote:if they had a case, i can't say i'd find it "disgusting." fiduciary duty to the shareholder, etc.

Is there any precedent for calling a consensual deal made with the government a "taking?" If not, it may not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct, given that it has an intuitive sense to it, but saying they had a case just because bringing it wasn't sanctionable is questionable at best.

BeenDidThat wrote:

IAFG wrote:if they had a case, i can't say i'd find it "disgusting." fiduciary duty to the shareholder, etc.

Is there any precedent for calling a consensual deal made with the government a "taking?" If not, it may not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct, given that it has an intuitive sense to it, but saying they had a case just because bringing it wasn't sanctionable is questionable at best.

I am pretty sure that technically they had no choice but to consider it. That it was their duty by law to consider it.
Considering how little time the deliberations took, it is also clear that they had already made up their mind not to pursue it. This is really blown out of proportion.

IAFG wrote:

eric922 wrote:I find it kind of disgusting. They took billions in taxpayer money and are complaining about having to pay it back. If the government insisted on giving away that kind of money I'd much rather it have been put in the hands of common people. I don't have any respect for whining millionaires.

skip biglaw then.

To be fair I don't have to respect or even like them to represent them well. I'm sure plenty of lawyers don't respect some of their clients. Though, I will admit I probably would get tired of it after a few years, but judging by the attrition rate at biglaw firms it looks like a lot of people aren't fans of that environment.

Pokemon wrote:

BeenDidThat wrote:

IAFG wrote:if they had a case, i can't say i'd find it "disgusting." fiduciary duty to the shareholder, etc.

Is there any precedent for calling a consensual deal made with the government a "taking?" If not, it may not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct, given that it has an intuitive sense to it, but saying they had a case just because bringing it wasn't sanctionable is questionable at best.

I am pretty sure that technically they had no choice but to consider it. That it was their duty by law to consider it.
Considering how little time the deliberations took, it is also clear that they had already made up their mind not to pursue it. This is really blown out of proportion.

I agree that it the board's considering it was overblown. I think the Times blew it up so the public eye could get on it and AIG would avoid the suit. And because it'll drive readership.

But the suit remains, albeit without AIG's involvement. That is, a major shareholder in AIG is suing the federal government claiming that AIG's bailout was a taking. It's a pretty absurd claim given that the gov't didn't force AIG to sign, it merely concocted an option that otherwise would not have existed, and AIG would have headed into bankruptcy.

BeenDidThat wrote:

Pokemon wrote:

BeenDidThat wrote:

IAFG wrote:if they had a case, i can't say i'd find it "disgusting." fiduciary duty to the shareholder, etc.

Is there any precedent for calling a consensual deal made with the government a "taking?" If not, it may not rise to the level of sanctionable conduct, given that it has an intuitive sense to it, but saying they had a case just because bringing it wasn't sanctionable is questionable at best.

I am pretty sure that technically they had no choice but to consider it. That it was their duty by law to consider it.
Considering how little time the deliberations took, it is also clear that they had already made up their mind not to pursue it. This is really blown out of proportion.

I agree that it the board's considering it was overblown. I think the Times blew it up so the public eye could get on it and AIG would avoid the suit. And because it'll drive readership.

But the suit remains, albeit without AIG's involvement. That is, a major shareholder in AIG is suing the federal government claiming that AIG's bailout was a taking. It's a pretty absurd claim given that the gov't didn't force AIG to sign, it merely concocted an option that otherwise would not have existed, and AIG would have headed into bankruptcy.

It always was a shareholder suit. Hank Greenberg has always been a prick who does whatever he can to enrich himself. He was forced out of AIG for unscrupulous behavior (including unfair enrichment), then sued the company for extra compensation / to force through some deals made while he was CEO that benefited him at the expense of the company. He then sued AIG for securities fraud saying he overpaid for the shares he bought. He sued the Fed Reserve 2 years ago about the bailout and lost. now he's trying again, and if the board of AIG hadn't "considered" joining, he'd have sued them again.

I read about it as it happened each time, but here are a few links I dug up
http://www.businessinsider.com/hank-gre ... aig-2009-3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 04566.html

Depends on what you mean by "disgusting." As a legal matter....sure they can pursue any claim they have and perhaps should do so as s duty to their shareholders. As a personal matter, would I think less of the company and maybe not give them my busines (assuming they sell to consumers)? Then yes.

jrf12886 wrote:Depends on what you mean by "disgusting." As a legal matter....sure they can pursue any claim they have and perhaps should do so as s duty to their shareholders. As a personal matter, would I think less of the company and maybe not give them my busines (assuming they sell to consumers)? Then yes.

AIG? Yes, they sell to consumers

fuck aig

cooldude87 wrote:fuck aig

dingbat wrote:

jrf12886 wrote:Depends on what you mean by "disgusting." As a legal matter....sure they can pursue any claim they have and perhaps should do so as s duty to their shareholders. As a personal matter, would I think less of the company and maybe not give them my busines (assuming they sell to consumers)? Then yes.

AIG? Yes, they sell to consumers

Oh ok. I just choose insurance based on who has the wittiest commercials.

jrf12886 wrote:

dingbat wrote:

jrf12886 wrote:Depends on what you mean by "disgusting." As a legal matter....sure they can pursue any claim they have and perhaps should do so as s duty to their shareholders. As a personal matter, would I think less of the company and maybe not give them my busines (assuming they sell to consumers)? Then yes.

AIG? Yes, they sell to consumers

Oh ok. I just choose insurance based on who has the wittiest commercials.

You should base it on two criteria (assuming identical coverage)
1) lowest price (pro-tip: not the one whose commercials claim the lowest price)
2) complaint/dispute ratio. You can look this up in your state's insurance regulator's website

How can we overcome this "too big to fail" conundrum? Isn't this essentially undermining our laws?

LaBarrister wrote:How can we overcome this "too big to fail" conundrum? Isn't this essentially undermining our laws?

Let's start by reintroducing glass-steagel

dingbat wrote:

LaBarrister wrote:How can we overcome this "too big to fail" conundrum? Isn't this essentially undermining our laws?

Let's start by reintroducing glass-steagel

Seconded.

or just take away the power to bailout

cooldude87 wrote:or just take away the power to bailout

Bad idea. I hate bailouts, but some firms are too big. AIG was intercconnected with every major player and if they'd gone under the financial underpinnings of this country would have came to a halt. That might not sound so bad, until you realize that everything runs on credit.

cooldude87 wrote:or just take away the power to bailout

Yes, you cannot take away the power to bailout. That would have even worse consequences than those from letting big banks get away without punishment. They really do have so much money that they have to stick around for our country to survive.

dingbat wrote:

LaBarrister wrote:How can we overcome this "too big to fail" conundrum? Isn't this essentially undermining our laws?

Let's start by reintroducing glass-steagel

Thanks for sharing this. I was unaware of Glass-Steagel until I read it here, and so then I looked it up. Sort of complicated but very interesting. I'm wondering why this was repealed in the first place.

Edit: "hear" =/= "here"