AIG and those bonuses

[Lynnie]

So, if they don't pay these retention bonuses to the traders, they risk being sued and going insolvent. These retention bonues are to (get this) keep the traders in their back pockets so they don't leave and take their clients with them. Also, these bonuses were agreed to approx. this time last year.

One former executive is suing them for the over inflated stock (analysts have anything to do with this?, not to mention an overvaluing of assets). However, since We The People own 80% of the company, we are the Defendants! The plot thickens.

And the President is trying to figure out a way to cancel the bonuses. Looks grim to me. This is now a legal batle.

Bush got nailed on this. Again, we know the bailouts don't work. And, while Obama was talking pay restrictions on those who were to receive anymore tax payer dollars, it doesn't appear that the proper due dilligence was performed.....AGAIN!

Washington is outraged! Wahoo! I am laughing! This is a complete comedy of errors of which unfortunately we don't have a curtain to stop the show.

I see a very simple solution to this mess. Where's my musket?

 

[ItzKatzTime]

"Comedy of Errors" Soooo true!!! But, how many decades could we follow the original manuscript back to.

 

[BeachSiO2]

I agree that there were errors in the result; however, I am awaiting the announcement by Press Secretary on when President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner knew there was a problem. Will this be a case where Geithner will be accused of helping his buddies on Wall Street, like Cheney was accused of doing with Halliburton in Iraq? It's too early to tell but something smells fishy. I will requote here what I stated in another thread regarding Gibbs' response today as I believe it is pertinent. I personally believe this could turn out to be Obama's economic WMD, if he didn't know and his advisors led him astray (emphasis added by me)....

This is from the Hill newspaper...

Gibbs was repeatedly questioned during his daily briefing about whether Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had informed the president of the bonuses before Monday and over whether Geithner was aware of them as he dealt with the insurance giant over the last few weeks.

Gibbs said the president has ?complete confidence? in both Geithner and the oversight process, going so far to say that Geithner ?took extraordinary steps, based on contracts that were in existence in April of last year, in order to do all that he could do to protect the taxpayer.?

The White House didn?t criticize the $165 million in bonuses to executives until Sunday, after AIG had already authorized them. Obama did not weigh in until Monday.

Gibbs was unable to provide explanations for why Obama and administration officials did not offer criticism last week, or when Geithner found out about the bonuses. AIG faced a March 15 deadline under contracts with employees for paying the bonuses.

Despite being pressed repeatedly, Gibbs also was unable to say when Obama was informed of the bonuses.

?I have not talked to the president specifically about when he was informed,? Gibbs said, adding that he would ?check on the exact tick-tock,? or timeline, of when Geithner learned of the bonuses and if or when he informed the president.

 

[Lynnie]

I agree that there were errors in the result; however, I am awaiting the announcement by Press Secretary on when President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner knew there was a problem. Will this be a case where Geithner will be accused of helping his buddies on Wall Street, like Cheney was accused of doing with Halliburton in Iraq? It's too early to tell but something smells fishy. I will requote here what I stated in another thread regarding Gibbs' response today as I believe it is pertinent. I personally believe this could turn out to be Obama's economic WMD, if he didn't know and his advisors led him astray (emphasis added by me)....

This is from the Hill newspaper...

Gibbs was repeatedly questioned during his daily briefing about whether Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had informed the president of the bonuses before Monday and over whether Geithner was aware of them as he dealt with the insurance giant over the last few weeks.

Gibbs said the president has ?complete confidence? in both Geithner and the oversight process, going so far to say that Geithner ?took extraordinary steps, based on contracts that were in existence in April of last year, in order to do all that he could do to protect the taxpayer.?

The White House didn?t criticize the $165 million in bonuses to executives until Sunday, after AIG had already authorized them. Obama did not weigh in until Monday.

Gibbs was unable to provide explanations for why Obama and administration officials did not offer criticism last week, or when Geithner found out about the bonuses. AIG faced a March 15 deadline under contracts with employees for paying the bonuses.

Despite being pressed repeatedly, Gibbs also was unable to say when Obama was informed of the bonuses.

?I have not talked to the president specifically about when he was informed,? Gibbs said, adding that he would ?check on the exact tick-tock,? or timeline, of when Geithner learned of the bonuses and if or when he informed the president.

Absolutely! We The People have no say in this, but We all know to do due diligence. Why wasn't that performed - or, was it performed and those pesky books went mysteriously missing/bonuses overlooked? There's a rat, alright! If AIG lied, call back the funds.

 

[scooterbug44]

I vote we don't give them retention bonuses - worst case scenario is that we don't retain the people who F-ed up and they leave w/ their clients (how satisfied and loyal do you think those clients are BTW) ........................ then let them GO AHEAD AND SUE US!

I'd love to be on that jury, wouldn't you?

 

[Lynnie]

I vote we don't give them retention bonuses - worst case scenario is that we don't retain the people who F-ed up and they leave w/ their clients (how satisfied and loyal do you think those clients are BTW) ........................ then let them GO AHEAD AND SUE US!

I'd love to be on that jury, wouldn't you?

You can't be on the jury because you are a defendant.

 

[scooterbug44]

And so is every lawyer, judge, witness ...................... and potential juror.

And the plaintiff is also SUING THEMSELVES!

See what a great idea it is!

 

[Lynnie]

Yep! This one has the judicial system scratching they heads! Call the note, free money, whatever you want to call it.

Time for AIG to sink. News blurb I heard this morning, "In a free society, a corporation enjoys success, but sometimes has to take failure with them, too."

 

[BeachSiO2]

Well Donald Trump always said that if you borrow a million dollars, they'll foreclose on you. If you borrow a 100 million, they'll lend you more.

 

[Will B]

I think it certainly shines a negative light on both AIG and those who took the money; however, they were honoring a 2007 (maybe 2008) contract, and no stipulations were placed on the money regarding the nullificaction of any existing contracts.

Here's the twist. Legally, those who took the money have AIG over a barrel because they have a legal contract. If the money gets taken away, I would assume that some...maybe all...will sue. AIG is based in CT. There is a law in CT that says if somebody has to sue to collect money that they are legally (read it...LEGALLY) entitled to, they can collect two times the amount that was originally owed to them.

So...it all gets put on those who took the money. If they give it back, good for them. If it gets taken away, I would expect lawsuits. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Ultimately, it will come down to which option will cost less, but either way it's gonna cost something...