Monday, November 21, 2011

A Bankster Who Belongs in Court - but for criminal charges of fraud

This ass was one of those individuals who appears to have figured prominently in the machinations and over-leveraging which crashed the economy for all of us. Dishonest ratings of credit default swaps was only one part of the secret and unregulated financial activity which ripped off all of us.  The mismanagement of this man should require HIM to PAY SHAREHOLDERS for the return of his compensation and for the loss of value of their stock.

And of course, a good share of the blame goes to the lack of effective regulation under the Bush administration. Remember that economic crash the next time you hear a damned republican talking about 'onerous regulation'. These are the people and the kind of abuses they are trying to protect from regulation and enforcement.

I hope this jerk spends a fortune and gains nothing in his suit.

Former AIG chief sues U.S. for $25 billion

Choi Jae-Ku/AFP/Getty Images
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman of American International Group (shown in 2003 file photo), is back in court with a lawsuit against the federal government.
Former American International Group CEO Maurice "Hank" Greenberg thinks he got a raw deal, and he wants the government to pay up. Greenberg filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims asserting that the government bailout and takeover of the insurance giant was an unconstitutional seizure of private property, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. Greenberg's Starr International Co., which used to be AIG's biggest stakeholder, is seeking $25 billion in damages, based on the value of the 80 percent stake in AIG the government took after providing it with an $182 billion bailout.
Those funds allowed AIG to pay off counterparties like Goldman Sachs in full and reward executives with $165 million in bonuses in 2008, even though AIG lost $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of that year. This situation raised considerable ire among both the public and investors. AIG's own value plummeted and it was reduced to selling off assets to pay back the government, both moves of which hurt Greenberg's stake in the firm.
An AIG representative declined to comment on the suit via email; the Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment. The Journal said that the Treasury Department had no immediate comment.
This isn't Greenberg's first legal tussle with the government, and it's not the first time he's clashed with his former company. Greenberg left AIG in 2005 after an accounting fraud investigation was launched by then-Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The criminal charges didn't stick, but in 2009, Greenberg paid $15 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission for accounting violations. Also in that year, a federal judge ruled that Greenberg was entitled to $4.3 billion in AIG shares the company had sued in an attempt to recover.


  1. There's a word for Mr. Greenberg. Well, two, actually. "Fuck you.".

  2. This man is an example of why I believe in regulating the large. Corporations like AIG affect the lives of millions and fit well into my model of the danger posed versus the legitimate actions possible. I'm not in favor of nationalizing them or driving them out of existence, but they do need to operate in a system of regulation.

  3. "This man is an example of why I believe in regulating the large."

    Really, how many people has he killed? How many homes has he burned down? How many kids has he run over in crosswalks?

    WTF, you wanna regulate commerce but not guns. Commerce doesn't kill people, people kill people. Hmm, that sounds like sumpin' I heard afore.

  4. Democommie,

    Commerce doesn't kill people? What about the people who commit suicide when some jerk of a corporate type erases their life savings? What about the people who die from inhaling particulates from coal-fired plants? What about the people who die from lack of access to good health care?

    And since death is not the only harm, what about the people who labor in sweat shops to manufacture the crap that corporations sell? What about the people who labor here for the same corporations for wages well below what they're worth? And on and on the story goes.

    A firearm is a one-on-one object. To hurt millions, you have to dream bigger.

  5. Oh, so, commerce does kill people, but teh gunz don't? Do you actually proofread for content?

    You're saying that a concept is deadly but that your favorite "inanimate object" is nothing more than a hunk of iron? Okey-dokey.

  6. Democommie,

    Is there any point in talking with you?

    "A firearm is a one-on-one object."

    Please do try to figure out what that means.

  7. "A firearm is a one-on-one object."

    It could mean all sorts of things, moron.

    You appear to be suffering from the same malady that afflicts a lot of other gunzloonz--an inability to be logical.

    You think gunz are nothing but hunks of iron. You think "commerce" kills people. Those two thoughts being in one's head at the same moment create cognitive dissonance in people who actually think before they speak.

    "Is there any point in talking with you?"

    Not until you start making sense.

  8. Well, Greg, to be fair,
    "A firearm is a one-on-one object," except in the multiple shootings. Then it's a one-on-three or one-on-thirty-three object.

  9. All right, how about a one-at-a-time object?