Trapper John
01-09-2013, 10:30
I am surprised that no one has picked up on this outrage!
"Starr International Co. Inc., the investment firm of former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg, filed the lawsuit in November 2011 on behalf of the firm and AIG shareholders.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims.
AIG said that, by law, its board must consider three options: take over the lawsuit and pursue the claims on its own; attempt to prevent the claims from being pursued by Starr; or allow Starr to continue to pursue the complaint on AIG's behalf.
The insurer noted that, should it elect not to let Starr pursue its claims on the company's behalf, Starr would likely challenge the move. In such a scenario, should Starr prevail in the case, AIG would not receive any damages or portion of a potential settlement.
The Court of Federal Claims denied a request by the U.S. to dismiss the lawsuit, which means the case will go forward regardless of AIG's participation."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/#ixzz2HUphbEf4
This is the epitome of gross greed and hubris.:mad:
"Starr International Co. Inc., the investment firm of former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg, filed the lawsuit in November 2011 on behalf of the firm and AIG shareholders.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts that the government didn't provide shareholders fair compensation when it took a nearly 80 percent stake in the insurer as part of its bailout. As a result, the government violated the Constitution, Starr claims.
AIG said that, by law, its board must consider three options: take over the lawsuit and pursue the claims on its own; attempt to prevent the claims from being pursued by Starr; or allow Starr to continue to pursue the complaint on AIG's behalf.
The insurer noted that, should it elect not to let Starr pursue its claims on the company's behalf, Starr would likely challenge the move. In such a scenario, should Starr prevail in the case, AIG would not receive any damages or portion of a potential settlement.
The Court of Federal Claims denied a request by the U.S. to dismiss the lawsuit, which means the case will go forward regardless of AIG's participation."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/09/lawmakers-outraged-after-aig-announces-it-is-weighing-joining-suit-against-us/#ixzz2HUphbEf4
This is the epitome of gross greed and hubris.:mad: