AIG Apologists, Let's See You In Court

Remember those AIG commercials from 2008 where the little kids talked about how their
parents invested family savings in AIG? Now those kids and their parents are called to pay bonuses to the AIG executives who ran through those family savings like...little kids.

AIG apologists claim contractual obligations for their bonuses, while the outraged public wonders why they even get paid at all. There are no bonuses on Main Street, where pay cuts and pink slips are a fact of life and American workers wind up on the short end of employment-related contractual disputes on a daily basis -- so why does Wall Street have a different standard?

Here's a solution: AIG should cancel the bonuses or the feds should cancel the AIG money. Make the AIG apologists who claim entitlement sue for their "contractual" bonuses -- and televise those hearings so we can all know just exactly what the AIG apologists think they did to earn public bonuses -- and whether those bonuses were actually promised by the federal government. It is long past time to peel back the curtain that has shrouded the AIG bailout in secrecy. AIG apologists, let's see you in court.

Comments

[Christine Pelosi - Huffpost Blogger]

UPDATED: Now that NY AG Andrew Cuomo has revealed the AIG Data (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/cuomo-reveals-details-of_n_175865.html) it is more evident that the AIG apologists' bonuses were unearned and in the case of "retention" pay - some of the people left!
All the more reason to recoup them or force AIG apologists to sue for them.

[barbarag56]

Absolutely! Excellent idea! Cancel the bonuses!
Make the executives sue to get the millions they claim is rightfully (contractually) theirs.
Televise the proceedings.
Let every single interested American turn on their TV set to see/hear what the hell those already-gr­ossly-over­paid executives did all day every day at AIG that was so extra-special wonderful that they deserve millions (more) of OUR TAX DOLLARS as bonuses.
If they feel entitled to their bonuses why shouldn't we make them beg us for that money on national TV?
Signed,
A public high school science teacher who will make do without basic classroom supplies (or buy them myself, more likely) for the rest of the year because there's no money for such frippery in schools here in California.

[MikeBoyScout]

This is so basic, i don't even understand why it is an issue.

Claim non performance, don't pay, let them sue.

We don't need to see it on national tv. it'll be covered well enough.

[wrightj]

Not only sue but make them pay to defend themselves. No legal cost shall go to the Taxpayer - all legal costs will be born by the AIG bonus recipients. Put them in a legal bind that will not only disallow the current bonues but also drain them of their life savings like they are doing to us and keep them bound for 7 years while it plays out in court. By that time they should well have depleted all their own money in their defense.

[TrueLiberty]

So, legal rights only depend upon the popularity of those that have those right? Replace the term "AIG Executive" with "woman" or "African American" and see how you like your new theory about legal rights. If the individuals aren't popular, force them to spend their resources and use delay tactics to make their lives hard to get their legal entitlements?

[larmarch5]

Women and African Americans sue for their rights and so can AIG scammers. Exactly.

[TrueLiberty]

So, let me get this straight, there are contractual rights of individuals here and you are actually advocating a lawless, willful and intentional breach of those contracts because the individuals with those contract rights will not be popular enough to win a trial. Try this scenario to see if you still agree with this tactic: An African-American car salesman signs a contract saying that if he sells 50 cars in a year he will be paid a bonus of $1,000. Now, the salesman sells 55 cars and at the end of the year expects the bonus as its stated in the contract. However, at the same time, the car dealership was hit with huge losses in its repair business and had to lay off some white mechanics. Also, as it turns out, the car dealership is located in a community that has a strong racist past and the owner of the dealership just says, "guess what, I'm not paying you, just sue me and if you can convince a white jury that you are entitled to a bonus when white mechanics are being laid off, I might pay you after 3 years of litigation".

Do you think that would be fair or even remotely ethical?

Protections by law should not depend upon the popularity of those being protected.

Your problem should be with those that passed TARP (Mostly Democrats and a few Republicans but ALL politicians), NOT a company that is just living up to legal obligations.

[Christine Pelosi - Huffpost Blogger]

Your hypothetical is faulty on many levels - TARP is not about race it is about business necessity.

You presume legal obligations- we don't know that. You presume that no business necessity would overrule the duty to pay - we don't know that - in fact, most people denied bonuses or issued pay cuts and benefit cuts are given that as a rationale.

Hence my call to answer these questions in open court.

[TrueLiberty]

Signed employment contracts are legal rights. Of course this isn't about race, its about a particular group of people with contractual rights that aren't popular right now. Your call to drag it through the courts and expose the people is rash and not based upon analysis. Do you understand that there are parts of AIG that had nothing to do with the financial mess - like life insurance? TARP was not about business necessity - you are mixing up your terms terribly. TARP was a bail out that was, incorrectly in my opinion, designed to "save" the financial sector. Money was given to the companies to pay debts and obligations. Employment contract rights are debts and obligations. Like I said before, if Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and George Bush wanted to pick and choose the "correct" obligations to pay, they should have gone the structured bankruptcy route, not the blank check route.

This feigned "outrage" at AIG is misplaced, it rightly goes to the (mostly) democrats (including Obama) and (some) republicans that supported the first TARP.

[USA1776]

Yes, we really do need a national sure your bank day.

[thecornerangel]

Do they think we're stupid? Come on... It goes like this:

1. Wall Street gives out Credit Default Swaps as gift attachments to mortgage backed securities.

2. Investors worldwide collect on the swap insurance.

3. Banks collect on the swaps they'd attached to their remaining unsold securities.

4. AIG bleeds as they pay out on all the swaps.

5. Our govenment gives out tax dollars with no contractual obligations, so that AIG can honor its contractual obligations (swaps and bonuses).

6. Banks insist that their remaining securities be valued higher, so they refuse to lend until congress revolks the market-to-market rule.

7. Our government allows banks to double-dip (see 3. above) since there is no enforceable contract prohibiting it.

8. Our government continues to pour tax dollars into the sewer we call our financial system, while they can't find a plumber to put the manhole cover back on.

In summary: The stench is so bad we all choke to death.

[Aleita Huguenin]

RIght on Christine--- All stops should be used got get back the bonus alread paid and stop all fute ones. In fack these employees who remain with AIG should be required to re- apply for the work with the new bailed out company. I am sure that there are some who should not be involved in the new company and there has to be "fat" to cut. I don't care what contry they live in. It is a new sorld.

[ESerafina42]

Yeah, I haven't even seen a holiday bonus of $25 for almost a decade.

And we've always been told that these things are performance-based. If they were, these guys should be paying the company money rather than the other way around.

[BarryS]

no, much easier! income tax surcharge of 120% on those who accept the bonuses. anyone getting a bonus from a company accepting government TARP or bailout money. i bet the all refuse the toxic bonuses. give them 12 hours to return it.

[babaann]

Any company that would pay these toxic people to work for them cannot be trusted with money.

[MPeter]

Yep, I agree. AIG has shown us that it does not deserve to survive, at least in its current form. It is too tone-deaf, too greedy and too bloated. Pull the rug from under them if they do not listen to Secretary Geithner and Congress.