Seriously, if I was in charge of a huge population of people, and somebody bit the hand that feeds you in such a literal sense, my news conference would resemble the torture scenes from Unthinkable. I’d be busting out every member of his family from the woodwork. Your best friends and family, would be mailed to him bit by bit.
I’m hoping this is just one lone nut, and the rest of the board at AIG tells this clown to shut the fuck up and move on.
In Amazon and QVC boxes…
with 7 day shipping so they stink…
Sometimes in a Wii U box so that you still open it getting your hopes up.
There’s no clear-cut legal or financial basis for something like this. This trial could take forever if they go through with it. However AIG’s lawyers > US Prosecutors, so anything can happen.
The balls on these dudes.
Edit for clarity:
Former CEO is suing the government because even though they needed the loan he is saying:
[LIST]
[]Government interest (14%) too high
[]Government making AIG use part of the baillout money to refund wallstreet firms violates the fifth amendment (illegal seizure of private assets)
[*]Government diluted the stock too much based on the shares they grabbed.
[/LIST]
oh im sorry, isn’t that what banks do to people who have clearly fucked up?
no fucking kidding. resentment is not a strong enough word for how the public will react to this.
I’m surprised people are surprised by this. Lawsuits are frequently made in the business world based on the weakest of evidence and grounded in alternate realities. The hope is always for a settlement to make you go away.
I’m surprised that only one of my friends reported about this on facebook
is the media keeping this hush hush or something?
fuck aig they can die in a fire
Well…
That’s good.
The public will be outraged until the iPhone 6 or Kony 2013.
What a slanderous title, you guys are a bunch of dumb dumbs.
AIG, a public company, has shareholders. There are a bunch of them that are suing the government, and AIG, as a public company owned by those shareholders, is legally obligated to CONSIDER joining the lawsuit. That’s all it is.
And now they’ve met and have decided not to join the lawsuit.
Throughout this entire process, all AIG has done is fulfill it’s legal obligations to its shareholders. Which is what a good company should do.
It is the shareholders that are greedy and driving this lawsuit, putting the company in this awkward PR position it finds itself in now. But the company itself and its board are not involved, and have in fact decided they want nothing to do with this.
Ironically, by declining to join in the lawsuit, they may open themselves up to be sued by their shareholders in the future for not behaving in the best interests of their shareholders. Catch 22, WELCOME TO AMERICA
Maybe you guys should read the articles you post and not just the headlines at the top.
“Damned if they do, damned if they don’t” is a shitty argument. If the AIG board doesn’t at least consider joining the suit they’d be breaching corporate governance ethics, right?. The primary purpose of a BOD is to protect the interests of shareholders. There are no laws in this situation as it’s unprecedented. The BOD does not have to join the lawsuit if they don’t want to.
Having said that, they probably won’t sue as it’ll hurt existing shareholders from the bad publicity it would generate.
Also, take a look at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AIG+Major+Holders
Now you see Starr being the number one holder, let’s drill deeper: http://www.starrcompanies.com/about-starr/starr-leadership
Because you’re accusing other people of not reading: "Mr. Maurice R. Greenberg is Chairman and CEO of C. V. Starr and Co., Inc. He joined C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. as Vice President in 1960, a worldwide insurance and investment company
Mr. Greenberg retired as Chairman and CEO of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) in March 2005, after serving as Chief Executive Officer from 1967 until March 2005. "
Game, blouses:
Shareholders, i.e. the guys who own the company and have a significant say in what it does.
You are arguing that there is a discrete division between them and the company. You are the dumb-dumb.
Fuck them. I hope half their people pull their cash out and let them slam their faces into the dirt of unemployment.
-Starhammer-
The shareholders and board members will be fine. You’ll hurt those who are just working to make a living, though. Not everyone who works for a bank is shitting out coin.
Yes. That’s why they didn’t join.
But they were legally obligated to consider it.
Which is all this news is about. People getting mad at AIG for following a legal obligation to its shareholders by considering joining this lawsuit.
Which they ultimately did not join.
So why “Fuck AIG?”
He is the ex-CEO. As of March 2005. He does not directly represent AIG, as evident by the fact that they are not doing what he wants them to do, which is sue the government.
As part of his resignation, part of his exit deal was a major stake in ownership, which means his capacity now is of a major shareholder.
He is leading the group of shareholders that want the lawsuit through his separate and distinct company Starr. He does not work for AIG. They work for him.
Are you implying this guy is still CEO of AIG? It says right there in your own post that he stopped in 2005.
Is there not?
Starr represents the investors that want the lawsuit.
AIG is not joining the lawsuit.
This is not a discrete division between what the shareholders want and what the company is actually doing?
If they had a significant say in what it does…don’t you think AIG would have actually joined the lawsuit instead of…not joining it?
Why are people saying that AIG sucks if they (a) did not sue America and (b) fulfilled their legal obligation to their shareholders? What are you guys still upset about?
Prior to the meltdown, AIG was over 52% institutionally owned. A heavy amount of shares were given to officers within the firm. As you may or may not know, the CEO’s are given a lion’s share of stock as compensation. The narrative isn’t a regular Joe constituency of shareholder is upset they didn’t get the best deal. There is no wall between shareholders and management. It’s that a shitty company took a shitty bet on instead of paying the price and a small group of shrewd businessmen are trying to squeeze more out of the life raft they got.
We’re upset about them being given tax dollars when they should have failed, and now them turning around and saying we the people didn’t give them a fair shake. Is this that hard to follow? If they feel they didn’t get a good deal then we’re allowed to say the exact opposite when we have to defend ourselves.
A better thread in a better world: “Remember GM and AIG?”
All true.
But there’s a big difference in that AIG isn’t the one that wants a bigger cut now, it’s a group of shareholders (led by an ex-CEO) that has no direct link to the company.
AIG, the company, has done no wrong here. All your scorn towards them, in this particular case at least, is senseless since they done everything they’re supposed to do here.
Greenberg and his Jewy posse are super sketchy though, yeah, that’s not argued. But people should understand what’s going on and who to hate, instead of just screeching random hippy freshmen year political science noise at the world in general.
No one here even read the articles.
CAPITALISM SUCKS WHERE IS MY BAILOUT - Tweeted from $500 iPhone on $50 monthly plan while $20K in student loan debt from taking useless arts major
His Jewy posse?
