Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jan 8, 2013.
I'm at a loss for words. Was AIG one of the 47% of moochers Romney told us about?
It depends on what "just compensation" means. I'm pretty sure Fair Market Value determines that.
If AIG thinks it means the amount they were asking for, but the market says it's what a willing buyer would pay for it, then AIG has a strange view of economics. If no private buyer is willing to buy assets or lend, then Fair Market Value says it's worthless as offered.
If AIG had been willing to break itself up and sell parts, they might get offers to buy or lend then, but since they didn't do that, they're just speculating at the fair market value, also known as "making stuff up".
If AIG shareholders have a case at all, it's going to be against the AIG board that accepted the bailout deal. I don't see how the board could join a suit against itself.
Well this really doesn't surprise me. It seems now days everything is settled in the law courts.
Apple doesn't really innovate any more it just tries to use the court system to stifle the competition.
The big winners are always the lawyers.
The solution I think is for everybody in the USA should sue everybody else in the USA, and have done with it.
No surpised by this. If the gov had not bailed them out their shares would of been worth $0. Are they unhappy that they got saved and got very little for a company that value was dropping like a rock.
Chickens come home to roost.
I'm pretty sure this happens quite often. Lots of rich people are very arrogant and get convinced by their lawyers that they have a case even when they don't.
Here is an article link.
When you have an economy built around always trying screwing someone else over this is going to happen.
AIG has declined to join the lawsuit.
DECLINED. Declined. Jeepers, for a moment there I thought you wrote "decided." Damn dyslexia.