Starr CEO Greenberg Wins Against the Lawless and Discriminating Feds

The Federal Claims Court today ruled in favor of Starr International Company, the largest shareholder of AIG, against the Federal government's treatment of AIG during the "Lehman Weekend" and its unprecedented, claimed illegal extraction of equity in exchange for an $85 billion rescue loan.  No damages were awarded, and though that outcome seems inconceivable, Judge Wheeler's logic had some very weak merit.

 It is a clean, well written opinion, in which the text's many pithy sentences speak for themselves:

• "This sizable loan would keep AIG afloat and avoid bankruptcy, but the punitive terms of the loan were unprecedented and triggered this lawsuit." 
• "Operating as a monopolistic lender of last resort, the Board of Governors imposed a 12 percent interest rate on AIG, much higher than the 3.25 to 3.5 percent interest rates offered to other troubled financial institutions such as Citibank and Morgan Stanley. Moreover, the Board of Governors imposed a draconian requirement to take 79.9 percent equity ownership in AIG as a condition of the loan. Although it is common in corporate lending for a borrower to post its assets as collateral for a loan, here, the 79.9 percent equity taking of AIG ownership was much different. More than just collateral, the Government would retain its ownership interest in AIG even after AIG had repaid the loan. 
• The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the Government treated AIG much more harshly than other institutions in need of financial assistance. In September 2008, AIG’s international insurance subsidiaries were thriving and profitable, but its Financial Products Division experienced a severe liquidity shortage due to the collapse of the housing market. Other major institutions, such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America, encountered similar liquidity shortages. Thus, while the Government publicly singled out AIG as the poster child for causing the September 2008 economic crisis (Paulson, Tr. 1254-55), the evidence supports a conclusion that AIG actually was less responsible for the crisis than other major institutions.

Though the opinion doesn't recount the discussion, the mere association of an $85 billion loan facility to fund a relatively small Financial Products Division with an 80% stake in a holding company with extremely profitable insurance businesses defies logic; surely other arrangements for collateral pledges could have been made had the Feds decided not to put the gun to AIG's head.  

• The Government did not demand shareholder equity, high interest rates, or voting control of any entity except AIG. Indeed, with the exception of AIG, the Government has never demanded equity ownership from a borrower in the 75-year history of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. 

The government is cited by Judge Wheeler as carefully orchestrating the taking of equity, installation of management, and overrunning of the company by its favored consultants without requiring a shareholder vote, and to maximize the benefit to AIG Financial Products Division counterparties, the taxpaying public and to the U.S. Treasury.  

On the fundamental issue of illegal extraction of value from AIG shareholders, the court found,

• "Having considered the entire record, the Court finds in Starr’s favor on the illegal exaction claim. With the approval of the Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had the authority to serve as a lender of last resort under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act in a time of “unusual and exigent circumstances,” 12 U.S.C. § 343 (2006), and to establish an interest rate “fixed with a view of accommodating commerce and business,” 12 U.S.C. § 357. However, Section 13(3) did not authorize the Federal Reserve Bank to acquire a borrower’s equity as consideration for the loan. Although the Bank may exercise “all powers specifically granted by the provisions of this chapter and such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking within the limitations prescribed by this chapter,” 12 U.S.C. § 341, this language does not authorize the taking of equity."

Oops.  While the smart folks at the Fed and the Treasury were working hard to save us from a thirties style depression (a red herring), they did manage to violate a fundamental statute of the Federal Reserve Act in the process.  However, when an enemy with unlimited time, funds and access to the court of public opinion comes gunning for you, surrender might be the lesser of two bad alternatives, and so the AIG board capitulated based on that logic. 

• In the end, the Achilles’ heel of Starr’s case is that, if not for the Government’s intervention, AIG would have filed for bankruptcy. In a bankruptcy proceeding, AIG’s shareholders would most likely have lost 100 percent of their stock value.

The last sentence threw me because I thought surely that the extremely profitable insurance businesses would have provided some real residual value to shareholders. However, state regulators which are charged with protecting policy holders at all costs, would have brought assets which supported those policies into their ambit through existing state insurance regulations, as well as through other protections.  

In some ways, Starr and Mr. Greenberg are to be congratulated for using their slingshot against our own rapacious, selective prosecuting, and plundering financial regulatory Goliath.  Goliath has almost finished plundering the financial services sector for cash, and as it continues to selectively apply its novel legal theories to its enemies, perhaps other victims may stop and say "Basta!"  Let's see how Met Life does.