It seems like the end of the article and the reasoning of the NY Judge has already said it all- this wasn't a seizure of goods, it was an option! I've only done some quick research on the topic, but I recall (and am now rereading) that at the time, AIG was pretty lucky/happy to be getting anything! It's a strange kind of capitalist who thinks he should be paid for the privilege of not losing money. If AIG went under, those shareholders were sitting on a whole lot of shit.
Exactly - quote at the end something along the lines of "it was this or bankruptcy" ... but the suit passed muster in one of the two states it was filed. No, no, that's just called modern banking.It's a strange kind of capitalist who thinks he should be paid for the privilege of not losing money. If AIG went under, those shareholders were sitting on a whole lot of shit.
It's a strange kind of capitalist who thinks he should be paid for the privilege of not losing money.