At one of the darkest times in our country’s history, Pearl Harbor and World War II, Norman Rockwell, inspired by a speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, painted his “Four Freedoms” series. Each of the paintings depicts a fundamental freedom that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy — freedom of Speech and Worship, and freedom from Want and Fear.
Norman Rockwell’s Freedom from Fear Updated by MAD Magazine
Americans shouldn’t let this be swept under the rug, forgotten! Let’s work together on the well-regulated part of our Constitutional right.
In all this debate over gun control – where has it been brought out that this Newtown shooter was not just some monster that came out of the scary woods.
He was a member of their community. He was from a wealthy family. He attended the same church as 8 of his young victims.
He was ONE of THEM…..not some boogeyman in some fairy tale.
Until we face the facts that our society is capable of producing such killers – and then with our obsessive love of guns and ammo – this type of tragedy will continue……
UNTIL we figure out why this kid was having mental health issues throughout his childhood – but yet his mother must have felt it was safe to have the guns in her house where this kid could get to them?
Is our obsessive love of guns and ammo that strong????
Ah yes, the Four Freedoms: Speech, unless your speech offends them; Worship, so long as your Christian, Want, so long as that doesn’t YOU, and Fear, the centerpiece of the War for Terror.
Have you been noticing these signs in the yards of Catholic Churches? There is a background of an American Flag with wording to the effect that We Pray for Freedom of Religion.
Well – excuse me – I need a sign with the same American flag in the background but my wording would be changed to – I Pray for Freedom from Religious Bullies.
I fully support the right to freedom of worship. What I do not support is when the religious folks hijack my government……and then try to tell me that they are the ones being persecuted.
If John Boehner is disliked now – just wait until Johnny B. and his Gang of Bullies try to shut down the government over the debt ceiling debate. Yes – there is a growing chorus of these Republicans who are salivating at the thought of shutting down the government. (well, to be more precise – a partial shutdown. Their paychecks, health insurance and pensions will not be affected. Only those on Social Security, certain agencies and govenrment programs will be affected.)
I always hated this phrase when George W. Bush used it – but it fits so well here. Bring It On……..
I would love to see how low the approval rating for Congress goes if Johnny B. and his Gang of Bullies try to shut down the government….
What could possibly go wrong with their plan? Just ask Newt Gingrich….
Remember the article fnord posted yesterday about the Connecticut Republican that went on Facebook with her rant against Gabby Giffords visiting Newtown?
Color me shocked – here is the same Republican now with the usual GOP insincere apology…..
You know what the GOP-instructed-apology is -don’t you? Use the word ‘if’ when saying ‘IF” I offended anyone…
Yeah lady, you did offend someone – alot of people.
Y’all will recall my mutterings about corporations and fiduciary duties to shareholders. Above link illustrates the dilemma a Board might find itself in, and, should I hazard a guess, one it really doesn’t want to be in.
I wonder why the AIG big shots think their company had to be bailed out? Was it because the company was being run so well – or was the company on the verge of collapse?
I am sick and tired of these fat cats doing whatever they please with other peoples’ money and knowing their bankrupt butts will be bailed by WE the Taxpayers…..
And then they turn around and want to sue the very people that bailed out their sorry butts?
If there is a next time (and if these fat cats get their way, there will be a next time) – the answer from this taxpayer will be – OH HELL NO….
OK, here I go.
The litigation that AIG’s Board has to consider (yes, I said has to) was brought by the former CEO of AIG and a bunch of other shareholders, on behalf of AIG and themselves. Yes, I said on behalf of AIG; such is the nature of stockholder derivative actions. The litigation seeks damages resulting from the actions taken by AIG in compliance with the financing agreement, agreed to by AIG by and through its duly elected, qualified and serving Board of Directors. There was apparently no requirement (as there seldom is) to require ratification of this action by the stockholders in the Articles of Incorporation, its Bylaws, or applicable state law. Generally, unless there was a fire sale of the assets by the Board, that would be the end of the story.
But, the financier was the federal government. Therein lies the legal basis for the litigation being active and in court, the Fifth Amendment which prohibits the government taking property without just compensation. As there was a shrinkage of the value of the corporate stock held by the stockholders due to the terms of the loan agreement (financing agreement) whereby the federal government received an 80% stake in AIG to be liquidated/redeemed/sold in the future. Thus, the argument surely is, there was a “taking” without compensation.
Back to the pending litigation. If the AIG Board determines to not enter the litigation, and the current plaintiffs are successful, AIG gets no damages (the same go the current named plaintiffs only), but AIG then becomes liable for losses incurred by other stockholders due to a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to said stockholders by the Board of Directors. If the Board enters, that is, takes control of the litigation on its own behalf, there is a giant PR disaster, and all the stockholders benefit (assuming a victory in court). The best outcome for the Board is for it to not take control, and the shareholder plaintiffs lose.
Yes, it is greed; on the part of the corporation, if one assumes the corporation is its stockholders; or, on the part of the stockholders, if one takes the position that “the corporation” is somehow an entity which exists independently of its stockholders. The common member of the two apparently mutually exclusive sets of potential plaintiffs is the shareholders.
This is why I opined that the Board doesn’t really want to be involved, even though it is (again, my opinion) forced to do so.
Finally, this entire mess is Greenberg (former CEO) seeking his revenge. That’s what this is, at its simplest.
Standard disclaimers apply.
When the Bush Administration drew up these ‘agreements’ that accompanied the funds, were there lawyers involved? If so, do I conclude one set of lawyers drew up agreements which guaranteed another set of lawyers future business? Or do I conclude the first set of lawyers didn’t do due diligence?
h, there were certainly lawyers involved. I will venture a big guess: no one could reasonably anticipate the lengths Mr. Greenberg would go to seek his revenge upon the BoD who fired his ass back in 2005. He was SOL until someone derived the litigation theory above outlined, one which so far has convinced the federal judge in charge of the case to keep this alive.
Again, the litigation is against the United States of America. I’m unsure which state laws apply (substantive, i.e., corporate law) as I’m too tired to ascertain AIG’s state of incorporation (its “domicile”). Finally, this is Greenberg: 1) out for money ($450 million or so just doesn’t go that far these days); and 2) out to embarrass the Board in such a way they get voted from their offices, with Greenberg and his buddies waiting to walk in and take over. I don’t think it total coincidence that (although the suit was filed six months or so ago) the shit didn’t really hit the fan until the government was out as a stockholder.
Like you all, I am sick to death of the corporatocracy. The pork in the fiscal cliff deal, for nascar and hollywood, etc. just makes me want to scream. And a lot of us thought when the bailouts and stimulus money were tossed around, that there was way too much pork and not enough stimulus. Hate to agree with the righties on that one, ya know, the ones who called the stimulus “porkulus,” but, dammit, given the K street influence, the US can’t seem to pass one freakin’ piece of legislation that isn’t well larded. And I do understand the difference between the bailout money and stimulus money.
IIRC, wasn’t AIG ostensibly bailed out because they insured so many “small” businesses that if they went under the “small” business community would suffer most? And then, later, didn’t it come out that the AIG bailout was really a bailout of Goldman Sachs because they held most of AIG’s paper, and paid off Goldman Sachs almost 100 cents on the dollar when, if not bailed out, most of the loss from AIG would have fallen on Goldman, not “small” business?
Sometimes, Occam’s Razor is correct. The simple explanation is best. In this case, I’d say “money talks and bullshit walks.”
At one of the darkest times in our country’s history, Pearl Harbor and World War II, Norman Rockwell, inspired by a speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, painted his “Four Freedoms” series. Each of the paintings depicts a fundamental freedom that people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy — freedom of Speech and Worship, and freedom from Want and Fear.
Norman Rockwell’s Freedom from Fear Updated by MAD Magazine
Americans shouldn’t let this be swept under the rug, forgotten! Let’s work together on the well-regulated part of our Constitutional right.
In all this debate over gun control – where has it been brought out that this Newtown shooter was not just some monster that came out of the scary woods.
He was a member of their community. He was from a wealthy family. He attended the same church as 8 of his young victims.
He was ONE of THEM…..not some boogeyman in some fairy tale.
Until we face the facts that our society is capable of producing such killers – and then with our obsessive love of guns and ammo – this type of tragedy will continue……
UNTIL we figure out why this kid was having mental health issues throughout his childhood – but yet his mother must have felt it was safe to have the guns in her house where this kid could get to them?
Is our obsessive love of guns and ammo that strong????
Ah yes, the Four Freedoms: Speech, unless your speech offends them; Worship, so long as your Christian, Want, so long as that doesn’t YOU, and Fear, the centerpiece of the War for Terror.
Ain’t it the truth, zippy.
Have you been noticing these signs in the yards of Catholic Churches? There is a background of an American Flag with wording to the effect that We Pray for Freedom of Religion.
Well – excuse me – I need a sign with the same American flag in the background but my wording would be changed to – I Pray for Freedom from Religious Bullies.
I fully support the right to freedom of worship. What I do not support is when the religious folks hijack my government……and then try to tell me that they are the ones being persecuted.
Yeah, right, sure…….
If John Boehner is disliked now – just wait until Johnny B. and his Gang of Bullies try to shut down the government over the debt ceiling debate. Yes – there is a growing chorus of these Republicans who are salivating at the thought of shutting down the government. (well, to be more precise – a partial shutdown. Their paychecks, health insurance and pensions will not be affected. Only those on Social Security, certain agencies and govenrment programs will be affected.)
I always hated this phrase when George W. Bush used it – but it fits so well here. Bring It On……..
I would love to see how low the approval rating for Congress goes if Johnny B. and his Gang of Bullies try to shut down the government….
What could possibly go wrong with their plan? Just ask Newt Gingrich….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/fiscal-cliff-polling-show_n_2430879.html
Remember the article fnord posted yesterday about the Connecticut Republican that went on Facebook with her rant against Gabby Giffords visiting Newtown?
Color me shocked – here is the same Republican now with the usual GOP insincere apology…..
You know what the GOP-instructed-apology is -don’t you? Use the word ‘if’ when saying ‘IF” I offended anyone…
Yeah lady, you did offend someone – alot of people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/debralee-hovey-connecticut_n_2427485.html
With congress critters like this one, we can’t stop paying close attention! Republicans have problems with math! And science, and compassion, logic…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/01/08/benmosche-aig-paid-back-taxpayers-but-we-still-have-to-consider-suing-them/
Y’all will recall my mutterings about corporations and fiduciary duties to shareholders. Above link illustrates the dilemma a Board might find itself in, and, should I hazard a guess, one it really doesn’t want to be in.
Larger point acknowledged. I’m just sooo tired of this crap.
Me, too.
And another example of why health-care companies shouldn’t have shareholders.
I second zippy — so tired, sick and tired…
I agree that all health care insurers should be mutual companies, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.
Insurance companies do very well and are very wealthy — which is why they attract investors. It’s crazy!
I wonder why the AIG big shots think their company had to be bailed out? Was it because the company was being run so well – or was the company on the verge of collapse?
I am sick and tired of these fat cats doing whatever they please with other peoples’ money and knowing their bankrupt butts will be bailed by WE the Taxpayers…..
And then they turn around and want to sue the very people that bailed out their sorry butts?
If there is a next time (and if these fat cats get their way, there will be a next time) – the answer from this taxpayer will be – OH HELL NO….
OK, here I go.
The litigation that AIG’s Board has to consider (yes, I said has to) was brought by the former CEO of AIG and a bunch of other shareholders, on behalf of AIG and themselves. Yes, I said on behalf of AIG; such is the nature of stockholder derivative actions. The litigation seeks damages resulting from the actions taken by AIG in compliance with the financing agreement, agreed to by AIG by and through its duly elected, qualified and serving Board of Directors. There was apparently no requirement (as there seldom is) to require ratification of this action by the stockholders in the Articles of Incorporation, its Bylaws, or applicable state law. Generally, unless there was a fire sale of the assets by the Board, that would be the end of the story.
But, the financier was the federal government. Therein lies the legal basis for the litigation being active and in court, the Fifth Amendment which prohibits the government taking property without just compensation. As there was a shrinkage of the value of the corporate stock held by the stockholders due to the terms of the loan agreement (financing agreement) whereby the federal government received an 80% stake in AIG to be liquidated/redeemed/sold in the future. Thus, the argument surely is, there was a “taking” without compensation.
Back to the pending litigation. If the AIG Board determines to not enter the litigation, and the current plaintiffs are successful, AIG gets no damages (the same go the current named plaintiffs only), but AIG then becomes liable for losses incurred by other stockholders due to a breach of the fiduciary duty owed to said stockholders by the Board of Directors. If the Board enters, that is, takes control of the litigation on its own behalf, there is a giant PR disaster, and all the stockholders benefit (assuming a victory in court). The best outcome for the Board is for it to not take control, and the shareholder plaintiffs lose.
Yes, it is greed; on the part of the corporation, if one assumes the corporation is its stockholders; or, on the part of the stockholders, if one takes the position that “the corporation” is somehow an entity which exists independently of its stockholders. The common member of the two apparently mutually exclusive sets of potential plaintiffs is the shareholders.
This is why I opined that the Board doesn’t really want to be involved, even though it is (again, my opinion) forced to do so.
Finally, this entire mess is Greenberg (former CEO) seeking his revenge. That’s what this is, at its simplest.
Standard disclaimers apply.
When the Bush Administration drew up these ‘agreements’ that accompanied the funds, were there lawyers involved? If so, do I conclude one set of lawyers drew up agreements which guaranteed another set of lawyers future business? Or do I conclude the first set of lawyers didn’t do due diligence?
h, there were certainly lawyers involved. I will venture a big guess: no one could reasonably anticipate the lengths Mr. Greenberg would go to seek his revenge upon the BoD who fired his ass back in 2005. He was SOL until someone derived the litigation theory above outlined, one which so far has convinced the federal judge in charge of the case to keep this alive.
Again, the litigation is against the United States of America. I’m unsure which state laws apply (substantive, i.e., corporate law) as I’m too tired to ascertain AIG’s state of incorporation (its “domicile”). Finally, this is Greenberg: 1) out for money ($450 million or so just doesn’t go that far these days); and 2) out to embarrass the Board in such a way they get voted from their offices, with Greenberg and his buddies waiting to walk in and take over. I don’t think it total coincidence that (although the suit was filed six months or so ago) the shit didn’t really hit the fan until the government was out as a stockholder.
Like you all, I am sick to death of the corporatocracy. The pork in the fiscal cliff deal, for nascar and hollywood, etc. just makes me want to scream. And a lot of us thought when the bailouts and stimulus money were tossed around, that there was way too much pork and not enough stimulus. Hate to agree with the righties on that one, ya know, the ones who called the stimulus “porkulus,” but, dammit, given the K street influence, the US can’t seem to pass one freakin’ piece of legislation that isn’t well larded. And I do understand the difference between the bailout money and stimulus money.
IIRC, wasn’t AIG ostensibly bailed out because they insured so many “small” businesses that if they went under the “small” business community would suffer most? And then, later, didn’t it come out that the AIG bailout was really a bailout of Goldman Sachs because they held most of AIG’s paper, and paid off Goldman Sachs almost 100 cents on the dollar when, if not bailed out, most of the loss from AIG would have fallen on Goldman, not “small” business?
Sometimes, Occam’s Razor is correct. The simple explanation is best. In this case, I’d say “money talks and bullshit walks.”