Guest EXPAT Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 This is unbelievable. This is a great representation of corporate greed at its finest. I like how they say in the article that feel they have no choice as they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to sue to get the best possible deal. Elizabeth Warren has already sent out emails to her constituents about this potential outrage. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/washingtons-jaw-drops-at-possibility-of-aig-lawsuit-85924.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Unfortunately, It's their fiduciary duty to do so and there is nothing wrong with it. I like to see how this one goes. This kind of case excites me since I get to study inner workings of the case and how it is handled by both parties and love to analyze its effect on other cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Nothing wrong with it? Maybe not legally. But ethically it's beyond ridiculous. They don't realize the bad publicity harm this will do to their firm and it has already started. Good business people would realize that and stop this before it begins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 Yes ethically it's wrong that I agree.. Not all things that are legal are ethical... I am not sure what there legal bases for the case??? Anyway sometimes people do this for a negotiation scheme. Usually people high in the office calculate their own interest, cost and benefit first and then weigh in other things.. You can predict how those people will move and those under them learn from them. That becomes a practice. Law firms, private consultants and investigators write report or memos on their analysis and forward to other pertinent people. That is valuable info and their money well spent.. The world goes on despite all these unpleasant practices and I hope justice can be done in the process.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 I think what it shows is continued poor judgement on the part of their board of directors. They were the ones who condoned and also paid huge bonuses to the management who took those risky investments and paid no consequences for it. And now they are trying to milk the government who bailed them out for even more money or better terms, who knows. It just demonstrates their character and in this case that character will be on massive display. Companies usually don't like their dirty laundry so public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted January 9, 2013 Share Posted January 9, 2013 They certainly win the corporate Tin Ear of the Decade award. Fascinating how even near-death experiences often can't rearrange the corporate DNA. Gerstner did it at IBM, Mulally is doing it at Ford, but just goes to show there aren't enough Gerstners or Mulallys to go around. People I know inside GM despair that despite the purge during bankruptcy of many surplus idiots, relief (fair or not to the labor force) from the pension overhangs etc., forced reduction in its absurdly large number of brands, new senior mgt, and promotion of fair numbers of competent deserving managers to replace time-servers and "presiders" who had been sitting on them, nonetheless the thing is now drifting right back into the same stifling brain-dead bureaucratic inability to make or execute timely correct decisions as drove it into the ditch before. Argh. TotallyOz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EXPAT Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 It was reported today that due to "current circumstances" the AIG board will not be suing the US government. AIG said they would release a statement on the matter by early next week. I suspect the outrage that should have been obvious to them finally got to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gcursor Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'd like to think that your idea for the resolution is correct Expat...really I would! However you have to consider who AIG is and how deep the greed runs there. I would believe instead that they were "persuaded" to "drop the case" through "certain financial means" (i.e. bribes through various financial transactions) which caused them to reconsider their point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hitoallusa Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I'm waiting for Geitner's account for the bailout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted January 10, 2013 Members Share Posted January 10, 2013 When I first read of this, I was more than a little peeved at AIG. However, further research led me to believe that the board was just covering their ass against a future lawsuit by Hank Greenberg. Greenberg was ousted as AIG CEO in one of Eliot Spitzer's witch hunts just prior to his pulling his Humpty-Dumpty act with those $1000/hour ho's. Hank still controls about 9% of AIG's common, is suing everybody in sight over the AIG collapse and asked to pitch his latest lawsuit against the Feds to the board. They had little choice but to listen. lookin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
