Ambinder on AIG bonuses: Make them sue for it!

[rvablue]

I think this is a good idea, myself.

It would put a public name and face to these folks who tanked a company and now want big bonuses.

Make them file a lawsuit to get those contractually-obligated bonuses.

I mean if you hired a contractor to build a house and the plumbing and electricity didn't work, would you still feel the need to honor that contract. No, you wouldn't.

I don't think any of them would have the guts to do it.

So, withhold the bonuses AIG. And make your executives sue you for it.

You owe that much to the American people for bailing out your corporation.



Ambinder wrote on http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/a_modest_proposal_for_aig.php:

Mar 16 2009, 12:30 pm by Marc Ambinder

A Modest Proposal For AIG

AIG claims that it promised bonuses to its derivative traders and that it can't break its contracts. Sounds like AIG is using legal formalism to avoid a messy court fight. Contracts, like promises, are often broken when premises change. Financial products brought the firm down; why hasn't AIG informed the people in that unit that if they want their bonuses, they're going to have to sue to get them?

In other words, if the collapse of the company is an insufficient condition on which to base the breaking of a contract, then the contracts themselves aren't worth anything to the company.

What's the worst that could happen? The "bad guys" -- the derivative traders -- would take AIG to court. But forcing the traders to sue for the money they don't deserve turns them into the villians here, as they'd be named plaintiffs. In all likelihood, AIG would, at some point in the future, settle many of these lawsuits, but not until a good number of the plaintiffs were shamed to the point of dropping a chunk of them

[donheld]

1. I love it

Which one of these fools has the balls to sue for blood money.

[nykym]

2. Or this whole mess is just

a smokescreen for something much much bigger that they don't want us to find out about.

[rvablue]

4. And what would be your cryptic theory on that nykym.....b/c I have no idea what you're

talking about?

Care to share...or is the blind aspersion as far as you are going to go?

Who doesn't want us to find about what, hmmmm?

[Teaser]

9. conspiracy is so easy

because if its a good conspiracy, you won't know about it.

And since you don't know about it, it must be a good conspiracy.

FUCKING BRILLIANT!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

3. Weren't the bonuses paid this past Sunday?

Maybe I'm hallucinating.

[rvablue]

7. I have to admit I'm confused on this....

some talk is of getting the money back.

other talk is of not getting it out.

too bad if Ambinder, and then I by posting, am a couple of days late on this idea. I think it is a good one and takes the onus off of the administration and puts it squarely, and justly, on AIG and these dirty execs.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. It's a challenge keeping up with all the gory details...

but I just heard on my local evening news that bonuses were paid, and at least a dozen executives receiving $1M have already left the company. Congress is talking trash about getting the money back? Yeah, good luck with that. Then there's the upcoming installment to AIG and placing restrictions on pay/bonuses. I'm going to tune in to the Newshour this evening and see how they report this. It's insanity.

[renate]

5. it does seem like a no-brainer

It's a win-win for everybody but the schmucks who did this to us.

[hamsterjill]

6. Sounds like a plan to me.

n/t

[cwcwmack]

10. yeah

great idea. They'd have to wait YEARS for it...

[Jakes Progress]

11. Some say let them sue.

Others suggest writing a targeted tax to get it back. Others say take over the company and rescind. At least some are trying.

It's too bad that Summers couldn't think of some way to keep his peers from looting the country before it happened.

[LiberalFighter]

12. And if they do sue make it a jury trial.