AIG, saved by US bailout, now considers suing US government

AIG may join a lawsuit alleging that the terms of the US government bailout were unfair to investors, but such a move risks infuriating the taxpayers whose money saved it from ruin.

Brendan McDermid/REUTERS/File
The American International Group (AIG) building is seen in New York's financial district in this file photograph. AIG, the insurer rescued by the US government in 2008 with a bailout that ultimately totaled $182 billion, may join a lawsuit against the government alleging the terms of the deal were unfair.

The directors of insurance giant AIG plan to meet Wednesday to consider joining a lawsuit against the US government, arguing that federal officials imposed unfair terms on the company while rescuing it from collapse during the financial crisis.

On its face, the idea sounds preposterous.

Had American International Group (AIG) not been the beneficiary of a federal bailout in 2008, it would have entered bankruptcy and seen shareholder value wiped out, financial experts generally say. To raise legal quibbles over the bailout terms sounds like a stranded hiker, post-rescue, complaining that he was carried to safety in a truck rather than a high-speed train.

The potential lawsuit comes as the company has reached a positive milestone for itself and for US taxpayers: It has managed to pay off the bailout funds and emerge as a firm fully in the private sector once again.
 
The members of AIG's board are surely aware that involvement in a lawsuit won't win any awards in the public eye for political savvy or self-awareness. Not to mention that it would contradict the "Thank you, America" slogan of TV ads in which the insurer expresses gratitude for the rescue while also touting its payback of taxpayer funds.
 
But company directors are also charged with looking out for shareholder interests. It's possible they might decide those interests are best served by joining one of two lawsuits under way against the federal government.

 
One legal action is led by former AIG chief Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, alleging that shareholder rights were violated by the government – such as by charging exorbitant interest on credit extended to keep the firm afloat. After a federal judge in Manhattan dismissed Mr. Greenberg's suit in November, it is being appealed, while a similar suit is still pending in the US Court of Federal Claims, Reuters reports.
 
The bailouts of specific corporations during the financial crisis were deeply unpopular with American public. AIG became the poster child for the problem, because of the firm's large executive bonuses and because more than $180 billion in taxpayer funds were deployed to prop up the company and its business partners.
 
By some standard theories of finance, any rescue of private banks and corporations during a crisis should not be too soft on investors and managers of those firms. Government officials are acting as a "lender of last resort," providing credit that helps the firms when no one else will. Whether that service is provided by taxpayers or by a central bank, the government deserves to be well compensated for providing that service, the argument goes.
 
Imposing terms such as high interest rates may also help to deter risky behavior by financial firms in the future.

The US Treasury, for its part, has asserted that the bailouts of banks and firms like AIG largely worked. They helped to prevent the financial crisis from deepening, and much of the money has been paid back.

"Taxpayers have recovered nearly $375 billion – or nearly 90 percent – of the $418 billion in TARP funds disbursed to date," the Treasury said in a November report to Congress. Since then, the AIG rescue has concluded, as the Treasury concluded the sale of an equity stake in the firm, which it had taken as part of the rescue package.

Some finance experts had predicted that AIG would end up as a net loss for the government. Instead, turning a profit represents a major victory for the bailout program known as TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).

Most large banks paid back their TARP loans fully, turning a profit for the government.

Other large bailouts remain money losers, however. Automakers GM and Chrysler ended as rescues that imposed significant taxpayer costs – even as they helped to preserve many jobs that might otherwise have been lost.

And, outside the TARP program, the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received the largest rescues, measured in bailout funds that have not been returned to taxpayers.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) of Massachusetts, former head of a Congress-appointed panel that acted as a watchdog over the TARP bailouts, issued a statement on Tuesday on the latest AIG news.

"Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn’t generous enough," Senator Warren said. "Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks – tax breaks that Congress should stop. AIG should thank American taxpayers for their help, not bite the hand that fed them for helping them out in a crisis."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.