--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: <snip> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > Me, I don't give a shit about "Whodunnit?" > > in this case. In this case there seems to > > be little question that AIG's lawyers > > *would* have sued the U.S. government > > if the bill had forced it to abrograte its > > contracts with its hideously incapable > > employees. It was a monumental fuckup > > caused by pond scum (corporate lawyers). > > Actually, Bar, AIG is currently 80 percent > owned by the U.S. government (i.e., the > taxpayers). > > If their bonuses are abrogated, the AIG > executives who were to receive them might well > attempt to sue AIG, but AIG itself ain't gonna > be suing the U.S. government anytime soon.
*I* goofed on this one. I hadn't thought it was possible for AIG to sue its majority owner, but in fact it can, and is doing so--not with regard to the contracts, but rather to get back some $306 million in tax payments from the IRS: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/business/20aig.html http://tinyurl.com/cpaybv
