Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


5

AIG Comes Out Swinging in $4.3B Lawsuit vs. Ex-CEO

Share

(Newser) – AIG 's longtime CEO sold crucial assets in 2005 out of spite, the company's lawyers charged as they opened their civil suit against the ousted exec today in New York. “Hank Greenberg was mad. He was angry,” said a lawyer for the bailed-out mega-insurer. Greenberg was weeks away from being ousted as CEO when he authorized the sale of shares from a trust fund meant to provide for AIG execs.

Greenberg’s lawyers maintain that the stock was owned by a related but separate company, Starr International, that Greenberg controlled. AIG says Starr and the insurance company agreed decades earlier manage their affairs together. AIG estimates the value of Greenberg’s 2005 selloff at $4.3 billion and is suing to get that money back.

The AIG logo is shown in New York.
The AIG logo is shown in New York.   (AP Photo)
Hank Greenberg exits Manhattan federal court today.
Hank Greenberg exits Manhattan federal court today.   (AP Photo)
Hank Greenberg.
Hank Greenberg.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
5 comments
VIEWING:
 
Observer
Jun 15, 09 6:28 PM CDT
Why cry over spilled milk? Greenberg is a prick - so what? So are all the guys he screwed over. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
Deebles
Jun 15, 09 6:35 PM CDT
Nice to remember that AIG was founded a century ago in Shanghai by a guy named Starr. I believe a relative of his became a Special Prosecutor. Considering the trouble I'm having with facts today, I take it back. Oh, and I also take back that Spitzer should have never written those pieces for the NYT, if he wanted to keep his hobby a secret. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
TerrifiedCitizen
Jun 15, 09 8:39 PM CDT
So, the compensation promised to the execs was not only promised in their contract, but it was budgeted for and placed in a special fund. It had been taken care of and never should have been an issue. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Adapt-Overcome
Jun 15, 09 10:52 PM CDT
So, the top crook took money from the crooks. So does this mean they are fighting for "their" bonus money? Who gives a crap! If they were to get that money back, would they use it to help the little people? Most likely NOT. So, does this mean that the CEO's didn't get their bonuses or does this explain how it got into the mess it's in. They still took their bonuses knowing they didn't have the funds to cover other areas? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Bubblebee
Jun 16, 09 6:32 PM CDT
Poor poor people... I feel so sorry for them! Who needs that much money anyway? Greed is a sin and there is a special place for them in Hell! Hope they enjoy it while it last... You know they always say the richest people are the most unhappy... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.