BusinessBusinessfederal reserveAIG

AIG Mulling Lawsuit Alleging Unfair Bailout Terms By U.S. Government

AIG To Potentially Go After U.S. Government For Unfair Bailout
Reuters
|

* AIG board to meet Wednesday to decide

* Company says obliged to consider demands

* Ex-CEO Greenberg called Fed 'loan shark'

* NY Fed says company could have chosen bankruptcy

* AIG shares down 0.8 pct

By Ben Berkowitz and Karen Freifeld and Emily Stephenson

NEW YORK/WASHINGTON, Jan 8 (Reuters) - American International Group Inc, the insurer rescued by the U.S. government in 2008, said on Tuesday it is considering joining a lawsuit that claims the bailout terms were unfair, drawing angry condemnation from lawmakers.

A leading congressional Democrat called criticism of the deal's terms "utterly ridiculous," and former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer - who probed AIG when he was in office - called the prospect of a lawsuit "insulting to the public."

The White House declined to comment on the potential for a lawsuit but defended the $182 billion bailout.

Newly elected Senator Elizabeth Warren, feared by Wall Street as a potential thorn in its side on the Senate Banking Committee, called the lawsuit talk "outrageous" and said the company should not "bite the hand that fed them for helping them out in a crisis."

In a statement late Tuesday, AIG said it had no choice but to consider the demand from its former chief executive, Hank Greenberg, and his holding company Starr International that AIG join his lawsuit. Greenberg has sued for damages over the bailout and wants AIG to join him in challenging the "exorbitant" terms of the government rescue.

Legal action by AIG would be shocking, given that the company has just launched a high-profile television ad campaign called "Thank you, America," in which it offers the public its gratitude for the bailout. On Tuesday, AIG promoted the ads on Twitter, even as it came under fire over a possible lawsuit.

"AIG has paid back its debt to America with a profit, and we mean it when we say thank you to the American people," CEO Bob Benmosche said in a statement.

"At the same time, the Board of Directors has fiduciary and legal obligations to the Company and its shareholders to consider the demand served on us and respond in a fair, appropriate, and timely manner," he said.

AIG said its board would meet Wednesday to discuss joining the lawsuit, with three options on its plate: take over and pursue the claims made by Starr; refuse Greenberg's demand and block Starr from pursuing its claims; or let Starr pursue the claims on AIG's behalf.

It expects to make a decision "in the next several weeks," Benmosche said.

Greenberg, whose Starr International owned 12 percent of AIG before its near-collapse, has accused the New York Fed of using the rescue to bail out Wall Street banks at the expense of AIG shareholders. He has also called the NY Fed a "loan shark" for charging the "exorbitant" interest of 14.5 percent on its initial loan to AIG.

"If AIG enters this suit it would be the equivalent of a patient suing their doctor for saving their life," said Mark Williams, a former Federal Reserve bank examiner who teaches in the finance department at Boston University.

BUSINESS JUDGMENT

A federal judge in Manhattan already dismissed one of Greenberg's lawsuits in November; it is being appealed.

In his ruling dated Nov. 19, Judge Paul Engelmayer said AIG had notified the court it would hold a board meeting Jan. 9 to discuss joining one of the lawsuits, with a decision expected by the end of the month.

A separate lawsuit under different legal theories is still pending in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington.

One expert in securities law said he doubted AIG would ultimately decide to join the case.

"All the fiduciary standards that guide board behavior would warn against joining the suit," said James Cox, a professor of corporate and securities law at Duke University School of Law in Durham, North Carolina. "I see nothing to be gained by AIG piling on, and I see a lot of downside risk."

The deliberations were first reported by the New York Times.

'CHOICE WAS BANKRUPTCY'

The New York Fed said Tuesday there was no merit to any allegations that the bank harmed AIG.

"AIG's board of directors had an alternative choice to borrowing from the Federal Reserve and that choice was bankruptcy. Bankruptcy would have left all AIG shareholders with worthless stock," a representative of the bank said Tuesday.

Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, acknowledged that AIG's board has a fiduciary duty to consider the lawsuit. But he also said the company had a choice in 2008 and picked what it considered the better option.

"The idea that AIG might sue the government is an unbelievable insult to our nation's taxpayers, who cleaned up the mess this firm created," he said in a statement.

Cummings' former colleague, the recently retired Barney Frank, said he was "stunned" by the news and added that AIG was a fully willing participant in the rescue.

"There was not the hint of a suggestion of any coercion. They did this very voluntarily, very gratefully. And if the company were now to go around and join this lawsuit, that would be outrageous," Frank said in an interview.

The U.S. Treasury declined to comment. It completed its final sale of AIG stock in mid-December, concluding the bailout with what Treasury called a positive return of $22.7 billion.

AIG shares fell 0.8 percent to close at $35.65. After losing half its value in 2011, the stock rose more than 52 percent in 2012, tripling the gains of the broader S&P insurance index .

Our 2024 Coverage Needs You

As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.

Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.

to keep our news free for all.

Support HuffPost

Before You Go

11 Lies About The Fed
Myth: The Fed actually prints money.(01 of11)
Open Image Modal
People commonly say that the Fed itself prints money. It's true that the Fed is in charge of the money supply. But technically, the Treasury Department prints money on the Fed's behalf. Asking the Treasury Department to print cash isn't even necessary for the Fed to buy securities. (credit:AP)
Myth: The Federal Reserve is spending money wastefully.(02 of11)
Open Image Modal
Both CNN anchor Erin Burnett and Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan have compared the Federal Reserve's quantitative easing to government spending. But the Federal Reserve actually has created new money by expanding its balance sheet. The Fed earned a $77.4 billion profit last year, most of which it gave to the U.S. government. (credit:Getty)
Myth: The Fed is causing hyperinflation.(03 of11)
Open Image Modal
Someconservativeshave claimed that the Federal Reserve is causing hyperinflation. But inflation is actually at historically low levels, and there is no sign that is going to change. Core prices have risen just 1.4 percent over the past year, according to the Labor Department -- below the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent. (credit:AP)
Myth: The amount of cash available has grown tremendously.(04 of11)
Open Image Modal
Some Federal Reserve critics claim that the Fed has devalued the U.S. dollar through a massive expansion of the amount of currency in circulation. But not only is inflation low; currency growth also has not really changed since the Fed started its stimulus measures, as noted by Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal. (credit:AP)
Myth: The gold standard would make prices more stable.(05 of11)
Open Image Modal
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has claimed that bringing back the gold standard would make prices more stable. But prices actually were much less stable under the gold standard than they are today, as The Atlantic's Matthew O'Brien and Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal have noted. (credit:Getty Images)
Myth: The Fed is causing food and gas prices to rise.(06 of11)
Open Image Modal
CNN anchor Erin Burnett claimed in September that the Federal Reserve's stimulus measures have caused food and gas prices to rise. But many economists believe global supply and demand issues are influencing these prices, not Fed policy. And there actually is no correlation between the Fed's stimulus measures and commodity prices, according to some economists Paul Krugman and Dean Baker. (credit:Getty)
Myth: Quantitative easing has not helped job growth.(07 of11)
Open Image Modal
Some Federal Reserve critics claim that the Fed's stimulus measures have destroyed jobs. But the Fed's quantitative easing measures actually have saved or created more than 2 million jobs, according to the Fed's economists. In addition, JPMorgan Chase chief economist Michael Feroli told Bloomberg last month that QE3 will provide at least a small benefit to the economy. (credit:AP)
Myth: Tying the U.S. dollar to commodities would solve everything.(08 of11)
Open Image Modal
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has proposed tying the value of the U.S. dollar to a basket of commodities, in an aim to promote price stability. But this actually would cause prices to be much less stable and hurt the U.S. economy overall, as The Atlantic's Matthew O'Brien has noted. (credit:AP)
Myth: Ending the Fed would make the financial system more stable.(09 of11)
Open Image Modal
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) claims that ending the Federal Reserve and returning to the gold standard would make the U.S. financial system more stable. But the U.S. economy actually experienced longer and more frequent financial crises and recessions during the 19th century, when the U.S. was using the gold standard and did not have the Fed. (credit:AP)
Myth: The Fed can't do anything else to help job growth.(10 of11)
Open Image Modal
Manycommentators have claimed that there simply aren't any tools left in the Fed's toolkit to be able to help job growth. But some economistshave noted that the Fed could target a higher inflation rate to stimulate job growth. The Fed, however, has ruled this option out -- for now. (credit:AP)
Myth: The Fed can't easily unwind all of this stimulus.(11 of11)
Open Image Modal
Some commentatorshave claimed that the Fed can't safely unwind its quantitative easing measures. But the Fed's program involves buying some of the most heavily traded and owned securities in the world, Treasury and government-backed mortgage bonds. The Fed will likely have little problem finding buyers for these securities, all of which will eventually expire even if the Fed does nothing. But economists have noted that once the Fed decides it's time to unwind the stimulus, the economy will have improved to such an extent that this won't be an issue. (credit:AP)
Suggest a correction
|
Submit a tip