tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post7815049154041428564..comments2023-10-30T07:10:34.610-07:00Comments on Underbelly: AIG to Us: Give Us the Dough or the Economy Gets ItBucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452321114185736762noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-88532869079072089662009-03-17T10:45:00.000-07:002009-03-17T10:45:00.000-07:00On my own blog, I am currently advocating a cure f...On my own blog, I am currently advocating a cure for all this: guillotines at the mall.<BR/><BR/>Well, also on the streets of downtown Chicago, but that has to do with my ire over a particular bank that seized the CDs of a belly-up bank, insisting on depositors' obligations but reneging on their own to pay a particular interest rate.<BR/><BR/>Put them all in the damn tumbrils, I say!<BR/><BR/>Yours very crankily,<BR/>The New York CrankThe New York Crankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04489472134701718697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-25821587988266684522009-03-16T19:51:00.000-07:002009-03-16T19:51:00.000-07:00What do you think the relevant facts would be for ...What do you think the relevant facts would be for a garden-variety fraudulent-transfer action brought by the US government? I think the govt is still a creditor, it seems at least possible that AIG was insolvent at some relevant time of contracting, and the issue of reasonably equivalent value seems colorable at least. <BR/><BR/>I seem to recall that UK courts will not enforce default judgments from US courts where the deft asserts lack of personal jurisdiction. So this suit might have to be brought in the UK.<BR/><BR/>Assuming UK law would be applied, Sec. 423 of the U.K.'s Insolvency Act appears relevant, and 423(3) seems to require intent to place assets beyond creditors' risk, so it appears that a fraudulent conveyance claim may be tougher to make out in England.<BR/><BR/>Given the strong interest of the US government you might be able to get a UK court to apply to US law. I guess there are some new EU conflicts principles that might be relevant to this.BailoutBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05740193324707111442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-80012402749001754042009-03-16T19:37:00.000-07:002009-03-16T19:37:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.BailoutBloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05740193324707111442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31671374.post-43719448796436113362009-03-16T16:59:00.000-07:002009-03-16T16:59:00.000-07:00The problem is, the vast majority of the recipient...The problem is, the vast majority of the recipients of the bonuses (which I believe have already been dispersed) are UK nationals working in AIG's London office, where the financial products business was centered. So they are beyond the reach of the IRS. Convenient, ne c'est-pas?<BR/><BR/>I am convinced that these payments are in no way bonuses for performance, but rather a form of extortion by the AIG derivatives experts against their all-too-acquiescent company and, down the line, against us; which they are able to pull off because, to borrow a Hitchcockism, they know too much. The full range of malfeasance here probably beggars even our worst imaginings so far.Patrick Murthahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08103905929956454199noreply@blogger.com