Moe “Show me da Money” Greenberg

A company run by former American International Group Chief Executive Maurice “Hank” Greenberg Monday filed a $25 billion lawsuit against the United States, claiming that the government takeover of the insurer was unconstitutional. In its complaint, Greenberg’s Starr International said that in bailing out AIG [AIG 21.01 — UNCH ] and taking a nearly 80 percent stake, the government failed to compensate existing shareholders. It said this violated the Fifth Amendment, which bars the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

“The government’s actions were ostensibly designed to protect the United States economy and rescue the country’s financial system,” Starr said. “Although this might be a laudable goal, as a matter of basic law, the ends could not and did not justify the unlawful means employed.”

The United States, it went on, “is not empowered to trample shareholder and property rights even in the midst of a financial emergency.”

Monday’s lawsuit was filed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., which handles lawsuits seeking money from the government. Once the world’s largest insurer by market value, AIG accepted $182.3 billion of federal bailouts beginning on Sept. 16, 2008, amid a liquidity crisis spurred by its exposure to risky debt through credit default swaps.

Unbelievable. The guillotine is way too good for this crook.

  1. Mac Guy says:

    And all you knuckleheads who said this was a good idea should be smacked upside the head.

    With a baseball bat.

    With screws drilled through it.

    Infected with AIDS.

  2. Rwest says:

    Actually it sounds like he has a good case to me.

    • McCullough says:

      Care to elaborate?

      • Rwest says:

        The government did help save AIG with the bailout, however they did screw the existing stock holders.

        The same this happened to me personally with the government restructuring of GM — my shares became worthless.

        Of course it’s easy to say that without the bailout AIG would not exist anymore, therefore the shareholders would be left holding nothing anyway — however that is not what happened. The government came in and took what used to belong to a private citizen – a shareholder – and said your shares are worth nothing now, instead we will be issuing new shares to us.

        Were there some of these shareholders who worked for AIG and were making millions that got screwed? Yes. But, there were many, many more “joe the plumbers” that had stock in AIG that became worthless, while the government benefited.

        It’s not right – period.

  3. DocWally says:

    If the government had done nothing, AIG would have busted. Bankrupted instantly. Billions in credit default swaps exposed as toxic waste. BUT — in the process, companies who had bought the CDOs the swaps “insured” would have popped too and the whole house of cards tumbles. The world economy just stops, ours too. Can you imagine what it would be like if the currency suddenly became worthless? Neither could anyone else. That’s why they were bailed out. Now, to Greenburg’s slimy claim: given the shareholders were going to be left holding bags of steaming dog poop without the takeover, they got no complaint. He should be satisfied with the hundreds of millions he looted out of AIG before he crashed it. Now he is gonna waste a couple of million more of taxpayer bucks to deal with his crummy lawsuit. Needs to be squashed by the first judge to see it, like a diseased parasite crawling in your door….

    • mharry860 says:

      DocWally, “The world economy just stops, ours too. Can you imagine what it would be like if the currency suddenly became worthless?” I hope you don’t think this is no longer a possibility, it’s actually an inevitability, they’re all just skimming the system before it happens and trying to pass the collapse on to the next guy. All of this, is just passing the buck, so it doesn’t happen on their watch.

  4. bigtoe1111 says:

    stockholders ARE the problem. i wish the occupiers would see this. easy money. i recently retired from UPS. glad i got out when i did. for some reason i had to take a reduction in pension benefits. if i had waited, the cuts would have been worse. bad representation, worse stockholders. now those drivers have to work to the age of 65 to recieve full benefits. has anyone ever seen a 65yr old delivery driver? big mistake when UPS went public. now there are people on the board of directors that have never sweated one bit for their sustinence and think they deserve more. hire a lawyer? they’re afraid of the teamsters. then again, how much of what they think they could get for me will only put me in a position to give them part of it. sweating and fretting are not the same thing.

  5. Bill says:

    You chose to work for someone. You also chose to not buy equity in a company. If you had purchased part of the company you could have voted those shares.

    Oddly I agree. The shareholders are the problem. They are the ones who permit the stupid exec comp that truly ostentatious make sense. I guess one smart exec can out negotiate a cround of shareholders.

  6. karmakanic says:

    hmmmm…our government bailed them out, but they want money from us? good luck with that one, charlie brown…..make sure you have lucy holding the football for you, in court!

  7. Ser Korz says:

    If the People of the USA bailed him out (AIG) and he was saved from, and did not go bankrupt; ( that was not free market, do to that in a free market the company would have gone bankrupt and lost what ever), was to be thier loss at 100%. The People’s tax that saved them from 100% lost , needs to be compensated from THEM and not THEM being compensated from the TAX payers. They need to say thank you and not sue for compensation .

  8. Animby says:

    Sounds fair to me. I just wonder if $25 gigs is enough? I’m sure they’ve hit rock bottom since driving the company to the abyss.

  9. Jack Lenker says:

    What you are all missing is the fact that AIG was only bailed out in order to pay off their counterparties which included Goldman Sachs. So you know who would have lost if they didn’t bail AIG out. This is all Quid Pro Quo. Let me take what’s not mine in order to take care of my masters and then you can come after me to get back what I took…except what I took had zero value and you’ll get paid handsomely for that worthless pile of crap. Deal?

  10. NewFormatSux says:

    He has a good case. If I were on the jury I would give him a victory against the government, and order the government to pay him full value for his shares. So if he is a 5% share holder, that would come out to 1/20 the value of their building in New Jersey, their desks and computers, and so forth minus 1/20 of their liabilities, so about negative 30 billion dollars.

  11. #22- bobbo, OCCUPY DVORAK: what if "we-all" number our own posts and post seriatim ourselves? says:

    Slightly more detail in a quick one page read. Lawyer suing is David Boies for instance.

    Hadn’t heard of this before and thought it was authorized under some kind of FDIC rules when banks “fail.” It was the Detroit bailout I have always questioned what with secured creditors getting nothing supposedly. They are first in line behind the Feds for taxes owed and what not. They often blackmail a good recovery in order to get the most they can: they are SECURED after all==hard assets in hock to guarantee payments.

    Just one more reason a good hard hitting series of criminal lawsuits is so handy.

    Obama sure has acted as if he was playing for the other side. But aren’t they all?

  12. sam says:

    king james bible in Isaiah Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings. in other verses posses all the wealth of the gentiles and suck the breasts of the gentiles.

    This is not so called “anti semitism” this is codified in the jews holy books!

  13. MWD78 says:

    lets give the 1% a round of applause for all their chutzpah…er, i mean hard work!

  14. TruthSetsYouFree says:

    Just because you buy or own something (stocks, bonds, tbills, whatever) there is no guarantee that you will earn a profit- remember that thing called risk? So using the very same logic if the courts should accept this suit for 25 billion from AIG, I think the AG or whoever represents the people should counter sue for the 182.3 billion bailout. The gov’t (read we the people) is not in the business of guaranteeing profits for those who cannot maintain a sound business model on it’s own merits.

    • joe says:

      You’re absolutely right. However, American courts don’t mete out justice in our modern times, and cronyism runs amok. Greenberg is well connected. His case will receive special attention not allowed to others.

  15. joe says:

    Perhaps this would be a precedent setting case. Taxpayers could then be afforded the opportunity to sue the IRS for violating their 5th Amendment Right as well.

    • tcc3 says:

      The “income taxes are unconstitutional” argument always cracks me up. Check out the 18th amendment. You have to read the whole thing, not just the parts you like.

  16. Mextli: ABO says:

    Sure just like the UAW and the auto industry that Barry came to save so unions will support the Dims. It’s about time someone tried to stop the increasing federalization of this country. I am sure it was done with the authority of the Commerce Clause.

  17. The Pirate says:

    Producing nothing but their own need for greed, Chief Executives such as Maurice Greenberg will always suckle at the easiest teat.

    The US treasury is Greenbergs favorite teat.

  18. DayOwl says:

    The complaint about the fifth amendment and due process is very important. The issue here is people being deprived of their property in an unconstitutional manner. Overlook it at your peril.

    The government subverted the usual bankruptcy process so that certain players (read: Goldman Sachs) had a positive outcome they wouldn’t have had if the government had not interfered.

    The reason the economy is in such trouble now is that the big banks took huge risks and made bad decisions, and they are having the government interfere to make sure they don’t pay for their mistakes. Instead, they are moving the costs of their mistakes to “the little people”.

    If “little people” do the same thing, they go to prison.

    • deowll says:

      One large correction, both the dim wits and the reptiles voted for that law and only a partisan simpleton is going to miss that obvious point.

    • 101st Airborne Divison says:

      you are an idiot. Take another hit off the bong and sit back and wait for your mama to fix dinner.

  19. uteck says:

    The Supream Court has all ready ruled that government can take privet property for public use, even if that public use is to sell it to another privet person who will develop the propery more ecconomically. Bankers were all for this a few years ago, but now that the shoe is on the other foot thay are crying foul. Were was this ass-hat’s concern when AIG was missusing his invnetment?

    • dusanmal says:

      “Were was this ass-hat’s concern when AIG was missusing his invnetment?” – in private contract it is personal responsibility to pick and choose with whom and under which conditions you enter in a legally binding situation. This man chose certain risk with AIG for whatever reason acceptable to him. However he didn’t chose to give his money to the Government and Government didn’t ask and made offer for his assets there. Even in Supreme Court decision you state, when Government takes private property for eminent domain seizure – they MUST offer fair value for it first. MUST. Here they just stole for non existent “collective good” (nowhere to be found in Constitution).

      • Gazbo says:

        The VERY FIRST WORDS of the constitution are “We the people” – collectively, in other words.
        Also, in order to take damages, I believe plaintiff will have to show that he was somehow harmed by this action. After the trillion or so $$$$$$$s we “invested” in AIG – good luck. An activist court may make a way to find for this psychopath, but I doubt it.

        • deowll says:

          Considering they had money invested and got nothing back your challenge isn’t going to be at all hard to do.

          • Gazbo says:

            Nothing in any law anywhere guarantees profit.We DO NOT owe a living to anyone. Without public assistance investors were wiped out.
            Tough luck.
            Show me where the governments actions were responsible for their loss.

          • Gerard says:

            AIG was and is a junk stock. Whatever they recieved was good enough because there would be no 25 billion for them to sue if the gov’t did not intervene. Moreover, they accepted the bailout, so they already recieved the agreed upon return on their investment. Why would any court allow someone to renegiotiate forever to get more and more money? I don’t think anything like imminent domain was used; it was an agreed upon transaction and now this guy thinks he has some legal leverage because other people after him and the gov’t fixed his incompetence and now he things he’s valuable. Other people made it valuable again, he made it worthless and recieved everything he legal deserves, but it was still probably too much.

    • Kduz says:

      Next time you try to sound smart you should turn spell check on…. lol

  20. zip says:

    Why is this person still alive? Someone please tell me.

  21. Gazbo says:

    Is it just me, or does this guy look an awful lot like Voldemort?

  22. getintouch says:

    another damn jew trying to rape for more money, to bad there isn’t enough to fill that black hole…

    • James McNulty says:

      Unfortunately, you are right. I’m perplexed that at less than 2% of the population, the Jews are in charge of our money, ie, the Fed; Bernard Shalom Bernanke, his predecessor Greenspan, , then Paul Volcker, then Arthur Burns are all Jewish. Do we have the descendants of the moneychangers the Lord threw out of the temple 2,000 years ago, governing and manipulating ours? then GOD HELP US!

  23. Gazbo says:

    Do we really need this sort of noxious trash here Dvorak?

  24. dadeo says:

    Without picking a side, doesn’t Greenberg and everyone else think the whole AIG takeover/bailout was unConstitutional? Seems like winning this for his new team, Starr International, could come back and bite him on the ass for the AIG deal.

  25. So as a tax payer, I should be allowed to kick this fucktard in the nuts.

  26. Breetai says:

    Please GOD! I want a French Revolution

  27. So what says:

    Pay the share holders their fair share. Pay them the value of the stock had AIG not been saved by the bailout.

    • Jay says:

      I agree! If the Govt hadn’t of stepped in, it would be worth nothing! Give him fark all! 🙂

  28. Publius says:

    I am pretty sure AIG’s officers already got more than enough of the US taxpayers money.


  29. orchidcup says:

    Well, you folks have got to admit the dude has a lot of chutzpah.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5518 access attempts in the last 7 days.