PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

AIG, Government Rescues, and Billion Dollar Copiers

| No Comments


On January 29th, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dealt Hank Greenberg another blow in his challenge of the federal government's crisis-era AIG rescue. Greenberg's company, Starr International, a large AIG shareholder, alleged that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had violated state fiduciary duty law at multiple points in the government's prolonged rescue effort. Starr objected to the government's initial intervention in September 2008, but the challenge focused on later events not barred by the statute of limitations. Starr alleged that the government, without regard for AIG's best interests, had used the company to funnel bailouts to other financial companies. The court affirmed the lower court's verdict and held that Delaware fiduciary duty law could not stand in the way of the actions that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York took to fulfill its public duty to stabilize the financial system. The district court hinted that there might be some remedy under federal law if Starr could show, for example, that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, "having attained control of AIG in the course of an emergency rescue, then forced AIG to purchase a photocopying machine from a bank in Utah for $1 billion, solely to subsidize the Utah bank in the interested of the banking system." Even absent a billion dollar copier, the Federal Reserve is not completely off the hook; another case is proceeding at the Court of Federal Claims.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.