AIG considers suing government for bailing it out

I think that this headline a bit misleading. AIG is legally required to consider it because their former CEO is a huge shareholder and is demanding that they consider it. Since it has potential shareholder benefit they have to hear him out.<p>NPR's Marketplace covered this story tonight and provide a bit of context:<p>"[Henry Hu, a law professor at the University of Texas and a former SEC regulator] says AIG’s board has an obligation to consider the lawsuit because of shareholder interests, “but they should also consider the costs of this in terms of their relationship with the regulators.”<p>Don’t forget, AIG is the company that just started running ads saying -- no joke -- “Thank you America.”<p>A spokesman for the New York Fed said the allegations have no merit because bankruptcy was AIG’s only alternative. That would have wiped out shareholders entirely.<p>[Phil Angelides, who chaired the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission] thinks the board shouldn’t consider this lawsuit for more than a minute.<p>...<p>AIG issued a written statement today saying it will follow the law and consider the suit. In earlier email to Marketplace, an AIG spokesman declined to comment. Though he did say Thank You."<p>Source: <a href="http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/aig-thanks-bailout-see-you-court" rel="nofollow">http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/aig-thanks-bailou...</a>

Nobody made AIG accept the bailout. They could have walked away.<p>It's fortunate that even with the short attention spans of today, the word "AIG" is now synonymous with "fuck up".<p>They should have waited another year or two.

This was on the homepage less than 24 hours ago but from the New York Times: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5024900" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5024900</a> — from what I can see they're basically saying the same thing. The whole situation is messed up, if they proceed I'm sure it'll rattle a few birdcages in Washington.

It's a shame the government didn't break up these financial giants when they had the chance. Now they are powerful again and don't care what the government thinks, and they'll continue to lobby against new regulation, and repeat the same mistakes. Then the American citizens will have to bail them out again. And they know this.

Doesn't the government own 92% of the company? How can the company make any decision they don't approve of? Did they buy 92% and have no voting power?

I thought there was such a thing as sovereign immunity. How does this reconcile?

i hope there is a special ring of hell for these guys.

Patient survives, sues doctor. Happens all the time.

These guys need to hire a normal person to sit in their CEO office and say "What the actual <i></i>*?!" to stuff like this, because they clearly do not understand how normal people see the world.<p>SECOND REACTION: hmm, so they're only 'considering' it because they have to. Fair enough I guess, crazy shareholders must be a nightmare.

I hope AIG sues the government, and the scandal and political firestorm that results means that similar bailouts become politically impossible for the next 50 years.

Reminds me of the costly executive conference retreat they took after the bailout:<p>Less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant AIG insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, Congressional investigators revealed today.<p>"Rooms at this resort can cost over $1,000 a night," Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said this morning as his committee continued its investigation of Wall Street and its CEOs.<p>AIG documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges<p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&#38;page=1#.UOzYUDV2qM4" rel="nofollow">http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&#38;page=1#.U...</a>