Market Currents
AIG sues Maiden Lane II, asking a judge to declare the insurer did not transfer "litigation...
-
Saturday, January 12, 7:36 AM ETAIG sues Maiden Lane II, asking a judge to declare the insurer did not transfer "litigation claims" to the vehicle when it sold it billions in MBS to it during the financial crisis. At issue: Like everybody else, AIG has sued Bank of America (BAC) to recoup losses on bad mortgage paper. The FRBNY - which already got its own settlement from BofA - is of the opinion AIG lost its right to sue when it sold the securities to Maiden Lane.
Other date
Latest Articles on Financials
This news story has 23 comments:
This was particularly severe in the run-up to the financial crisis, and in hastily made arrangements made during the crisis.
They are a slippery bunch.
AIG got the worst deal ...They paid the highest interest and were forced to pay 100% of the credit default swaps to the like of GS when the reciepients would have settled for less than half--It was all profit to them---they kept the MBS's and got the insurance...not a good deal for AIG
If they had covered up their true state, not taken the bail out but taken the corupt system down - they would have done America a great favor.
I guess the money the government uses to defend itself against AIG's lawsuit comes out of Obama's Stash, you think? or maybe more accurately, out of the pockets of taxpayers like you and me and everyone else on this board.
AIG was dead in the water without a bailout, and now they're going to sue the government over the terms of saving them?
Tell me which points you disagree with, and which points you consider "emotional smoke". I'm open to discussion. And I'll do my best to keep emotion out of it.
Here is Forbes take on it:
http://onforb.es/Y0hMoa
I have no opinion as to the merits of the case. Neither you nor I have seen the original legal documents, and are unqualified to interpret them even if we did.
Additionally, AIG as a company decided not to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The suit is being brought by the ex chairman Hank Greenburg.
Therefore, any comments for or against AIG in this matter is, as I said, "emotional smoke".
I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion that I was interpreting the merits of the case other than I am making reference to a Forbes article, summing up the high points. You have made this point more than once that people on this thread, including me, are drawing conclusions unaided by any facts even in view of reference material cited. What's up with that?
The Forbes article was dated Jan 8, and as of that date, AIG's board had not decided on their precise course of action, choosing to wait until they had more information to carefully navigate the legalities they made reference to. Maybe that has occurred and I am unaware of this subsequent decision. The article made mention of the Board being sensitive to public perception and so I can well understand their wanting to avoid a public backlash.
Nothing of this has any bearing on emotion. Invoking the term "emotional response" does in fact go against the statement that you have no opinion, as that in itself is an opinion - a judgment based on insufficient grounds to produce certainty. How can you be certain that any of this is an "emotional response" considering you already stated you knew nothing of the case. At least I had a Forbes article which appears to be more than you produced. Am I wrong?
I really don't want to pursue this any further and it would suit me fine to just let it drop. I typically enjoy your comments and if we don't stop this now, it could go on for a long time. However, if you accuse me of something, I am obligated to defend myself.
Calm down and take a deep breath.
As I stated above, the AIG B of D has decided not to get involved.
I don't care what Forbes has to say about the issue. That also is "opinion".
All I said was it is a case to be decided by nuances of a contract that neither of us are smart enough to understand even if we read what are probably numerous pages of legal mumbo jumbo.
No insult intended so lighten up my friend and go enjoy the football games.
If you want to sue someone, you don't need a reason. All you need is a lawyer.
Thanks for the strong dose of reality and your keen awareness of the worldwide economic cataclysm that would have been caused had AIG had been allowed to default. Not to mention the "emotional state of mind" of many financiers and so-called "pros" around the world.
The word "uncertainty" is bandied about conveniently today as to why the economy is not performing better. In Fall 2008, who among us was certain as to what an AIG default may have precipitated?
Again, thanks for your "reality check".