Skip to main content

View Diary: A business woman's question for AIG. Are you freaking out of your minds? (44 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That statement itself would likely expose AIG (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, flitedocnm, BachFan

    to protracted litigation.  AIG was legally obligated to give due consideration to Starr's request.  Any statement on their part that telegraphed an unwillingness to fully/impartially vet this issue would be folly.

    I suspect AIG gladly elected to eat a couple of bad news cycles over what is then shown to be a non-issue versus being stuck with protracted litigation for failing to honor their fiduciary obligations to their shareholders.

    •  Not saying my proposed AIG response (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      would hold legal muster in every word. AM saying that AIG could give due consideration to the request, and also telegraph that that's exactly what they were doing.  

      Again, I do not believe that AIG could have been hamstrung by a statement similar to this:

      We will give this the due consideration that we must, by our by laws.  However, our consideration is not an agreement, and any attempt to state it as such, is premature."

      Or something of that nature. Companies are beholdin' to their stock holders, to a point. But they must and do operate daily without sign off from their Board of Directors.

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:46:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site