AIG may argue that the deal that saved the company cheated shareholders. Fury at possible AIG lawsuit

Remember when AIG took a $182 billion bailout only to turn around and hand out seven-figure bonuses to the same guys who tanked their company?

Grab the pitchforks — it gets better.


Today the insurance organization considered whether to join a lawsuit against the U.S. government over the terms of the bailout — saying the deal that saved the company cheated shareholders.

( Also on POLITICO: AIG ad thanks taxpayers for bailout)

After a media backlash, the board decided against joining the suit, The Associated Press reports.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner — who faced calls for his firing over the AIG bailout — and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke were furious when AIG was considering the move, according to one Democratic lawyer. Other officials inside the agencies were angered by the news, too, sources in the department told POLITICO.

Neil Barofsky, former inspector general for the Wall Street bailout said AIG’s possible lawsuit would have been a “giant middle finger to the taxpayer.”

( PHOTOS: Who won, lost with fiscal cliff deal)

One of President Barack Obama’s top aides agreed: “Definition of Chutzpah: AIG, saved by taxpayers, contemplating suit,” David Axelrod tweeted.

Many Treasury and Fed insiders have long believed the terms of the AIG bailout — which only wrapped in recent weeks — were far too generous, not too punitive as the lawsuit is expected to contend.

( Also on POLITICO: Silver lining: Delay in hitting debt limit)

This week, the AIG board will consider whether to join a $25 billion lawsuit over whether the terms of the bailout were unfair to shareholders, who claim they were deprived of billions of dollars.

AIG began airing ads in recent weeks that say "thank you" to Americans for the rescue — a sentiment AIG's CEO Robert H. Benmosche assured is sincere in a statement the company released Tuesday night.

“AIG has paid back its debt to America with a profit, and we mean it when we say thank you to the American people,” said Benmosche.

He went on to explain that the company has no choice but to consider suing the government. “At the same time, the board of directors has fiduciary and legal obligations to the company and its shareholders to consider the demand served on us and respond in a fair, appropriate, and timely manner. Tomorrow’s board meeting is about listening to all of the parties involved and gaining a thorough understanding of the issues. We anticipate making a decision in the next several weeks.”

The Treasury and the Fed haven’t released official responses to the news of the potential lawsuit, first reported by The New York Times.

One former administration official, who worked on the AIG bailout, was in a state of disbelief.

“I can’t imagine that they will actually do it. Because whatever recovery they might possibly gain would be totally swamped by the enormous hit to their reputation,” the former official said. “What I don’t understand is why they have not ruled it out already. They have had plenty of opportunity to do so.”

Word swept across Washington from Capitol Hill to K Street and the administration — and the response wasn’t positive

“AIG should thank American taxpayers for their help, not bite the hand that fed them for helping them out in a crisis,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement. “Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn’t generous enough. Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks — tax breaks that Congress should stop.”

Warren served on a congressional task force that helped provide oversight of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout law.

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the House oversight committee, agreed.

“[The] idea that AIG might sue the govt is an unbelievable insult to our nation’s taxpayers, who cleaned up the mess this firm created,” Cummings said, according to a tweet by @OversightDems.

“It highlights the worst about what people think of the financial services industry,” said one senior Democratic House aide. “It undermines any sliver of credibility they may have had.”

The aide said if AIG pursues the litigation he would expect hearings on Capitol Hill.

The company’s board of directors is set to hear arguments by the government and Starr International, once one of the largest investors in AIG that is led by former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Dennis Kelleher, chief executive of the financial reform group Better Markets, called the notion of AIG suing taxpayers over the terms its own bailout absurd, but he believes there may be an unintended and beneficial impact of pulling back the curtain on where the bailout money went, including to AIG’s Wall Street counterparties. The idea that the AIG rescue was a “backdoor bailout” for Wall Street has long been a rallying cry for progressive groups.

“The idea of AIG, which got this sweetheart bailout deal with no strings attached, forcing Treasury and the Fed to parade into a board meeting and explain the terms of that deal is incredible,” Kelleher said. “But a lawsuit that actually explains exactly what went on with this mess might be a great public service.”

Scott Harrington, a professor at Wharton School of Business, said that the company actually benefited from the government bailout beyond just the financial investment.

“AIG was able to keep a lot of its commercial property casualty business especially because of government bailout. Those clients would have moved to other major insurers,” Harrington said, leaving a smaller business portfolio if the company had to go into bankruptcy. “The fact that AIG was backed up by the government allowed them to retain business that they probably should have lost given what occurred.”

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:01 p.m. on January 8, 2013.