fareastwarriors Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Hank Greenberg Challenges AIG Bailout http://online.wsj.com/articles/hank-greenberg-challenges-aig-bailout-1411941174?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Six years after AIG bailout...was it legal? http://www.cnbc.com/id/102040606?trknav=homestack:topnews:15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I think the strongest angle for the plaintiffs is was equity ownership legal? This article written today suggests internal documents reveal even fed officials didn't think it was: Internal Fed Documents Used to Question AIG Bailout -- Market Talk 9/30/14, 12:54 PM 13:54 EDT - David Boies is still grilling Federal Reserve General Counsel Scott Alvarez in federal court in Washington, D.C., to build Starr International's case that the government didn't have legal authority to acquire a 79.9% stake in American International Group (AIG) in its 2008 rescue. He cited internal emails, notes and other documents to try to show that Fed officials weren't on the same page in 2008 in terms of the "power" of the New York Fed "to hold" AIG shares. Officials apparently agreed the New York Fed couldn't "purchase" equity. But as one example of the legal wrangling, Alvarez testified: "Purchase is too ambiguous a term." (leslie.scism@wsj.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Assume that Starr wins. What's the remedy here? They'll government already sold their warrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpRaider Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Cash monay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valuecfa Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 Assume that Starr wins. What's the remedy here? They'll government already sold their warrants. I doubt Starr wins. I think the remedy is likely to be simply a cash remedy. However if they did win the next question becomes who picks up the tab and for what amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYDemaray Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 AIG has indemnified the govt so...do current shareholders pick up tab? That would likely kick off another round of litigation between AIG and the govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/aig-bailout-trial-bombshell-paulson-rejected-chinese-offer.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/aig-bailout-trial-bombshell-ii-fed-treasury-cornered-board-taking-legally-dubious-bailout.html Really interesting reading on what's happening in the United States Court of Federal Claims right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcollon Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Buffett Says He Gave Geithner Assurance Before AIG Rescue http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-07/buffett-says-he-gave-geithner-assurance-before-aig-rescue.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EliG Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 AIG is down -9.4% since Sept 19. Anyone willing to speculate what caused the drop? Is it... A. General market volatility. B. Reaction to the lawsuit. C. Berkowitz selling to meet redemptions. D. All of the above. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 My vote is for (D). Also, re (B) weird uncertainty in that AIG seems to indemnify the U.S. Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevevri Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 My vote is for (D). Also, re (B) weird uncertainty in that AIG seems to indemnify the U.S. Government. If it is proven that AIG was coerced by the government then why would it matter they were indemnified. Can I coerce you but make you sign an agreement to indemnify myself and move on? Seems like this is going to be the government paying or no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpRaider Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 B and no more benmosche at the helm to calm the waters. Has the new guy been on tv or anything yet? Saw the passed over guy was picked up by OAK... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merkhet Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 My vote is for (D). Also, re (B) weird uncertainty in that AIG seems to indemnify the U.S. Government. If it is proven that AIG was coerced by the government then why would it matter they were indemnified. Can I coerce you but make you sign an agreement to indemnify myself and move on? Seems like this is going to be the government paying or no one. I didn't say it would hold up -- just that it's providing uncertainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest longinvestor Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Buffett Says He Gave Geithner Assurance Before AIG Rescue http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-07/buffett-says-he-gave-geithner-assurance-before-aig-rescue.html Bloomberg left out the second part of Buffett's statement that, had the NY Fed not stepped in, AIG would've walked over to the bankruptcy court within 24 to 48 hours after Geithner contacted Buffett. AIG did not have a second choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 AIG to Offer Expanded Coverage to U.S., Canada Railroads Insurer Says It Has Expanded Excess Casualty Liability Limits to $1 Billion per Occurrence http://online.wsj.com/articles/aig-to-offer-expanded-coverage-to-u-s-canada-railroads-1412862437 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benchmark Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 My vote is for (D). Also, re (B) weird uncertainty in that AIG seems to indemnify the U.S. Government. If it is proven that AIG was coerced by the government then why would it matter they were indemnified. Can I coerce you but make you sign an agreement to indemnify myself and move on? Seems like this is going to be the government paying or no one. I didn't say it would hold up -- just that it's providing uncertainty. I don't understand why the lawsuit is relevant for AIG shareholders. They are suing the government, not AIG. Isn't this just noise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 The lawsuit isn't relevant for AIG shareholders but with all the lawsuits going on people are confused. I am hoping to get some cheap 2017s in the next few weeks. Forgot E: Aig has a policy covering Kim Jong Un - not looking good right now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinod1 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 I think AIG would be held liable for any payments that US Treasury had to make to Starr. In the 10-K section on risks Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) has brought suits against the United States (including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) challenging the government’s assistance of AIG, pursuant to which (i) AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; (ii) the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership interest in AIG; and (iii) AIG entered into transactions involving Maiden Lane III LLC. The United States has alleged that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any recoveries in these lawsuits. A determination that the United States is liable for damages in such suits, together with a determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States, could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations. Further on in Note 15 The United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY’s principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United States alleges that we received as a result of the government’s assistance. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied a motion by SICO to strike the United States’ affirmative defenses of indemnification and contingent offset or recoupment. The FRBNY has also requested indemnification in connection with the SICO New York Action from AIG under the FRBNY Credit Facility and from ML III under the Master Investment and Credit Agreement and the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of ML III. Vinod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTShine Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Maybe I'm naive, but I noticed the word 'Could' in the "...could have a material adverse affect on our business." That's different from saying 'if Starr wins we would be liable and not the government.' My guess is they are just covering their backside. But, I'm not a lawyer or a specialist in this arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MYDemaray Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I think the language implies they disagree with the scope of the indemnification and will fight it, if it comes to that (though they may not win). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I think the language implies they disagree with the scope of the indemnification and will fight it, if it comes to that (though they may not win). Why should current AIG shareholders pay for the previous AIG shareholders.... That doesn't make sense. ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZenaidaMacroura Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I think the language implies they disagree with the scope of the indemnification and will fight it, if it comes to that (though they may not win). Why should current AIG shareholders pay for the previous AIG shareholders.... That doesn't make sense. ::) This is facetious right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I think the language implies they disagree with the scope of the indemnification and will fight it, if it comes to that (though they may not win). Why should current AIG shareholders pay for the previous AIG shareholders.... That doesn't make sense. ::) This is facetious right? I just want to assess how likely this will happen to AIG and how much damage it could occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye4Valu Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 At what price does the board think that the warrants are attractive? What price did Chou buy in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now