This transcript is automatically generated
When you -- to look at this is say we want in on this class action thing man who looks like tank is on a -- we could benefit why didn't AIG doing ten.
Know -- they IG ran an ad campaign.
Just before that.
-- the US government but there's another issue here why that if they turned down going.
Following us and that they -- the New York fed.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Are you remember him right Hank is a write a letter -- a judge letting us 55 million dollar lawsuit against the government continue in effect.
Hitting the guy who used to run AIG against the tax payers who rescued AIG -- Which is why president and ID management hasn't announced said that it wants to be.
Well no part of this has one analyst put it it just looks PR pot.
To AIG CEO Robert -- Whether series.
-- Robert welcome that.
Thank you know good to be here not a part of it's not a part of that winner.
You know we went through a very careful analysis and and what is said about the events that occurred during the time we had to make a decision.
Was the press and no offense you're part of it.
Instead of asking why would AIG.
Getting the support -- -- working so hard to pay back America -- -- why would they then turn around sued the government.
-- -- -- -- box this I was to -- a box and that's unfortunate and I think some people are angry about the fact that we gave due consideration.
To a court order.
Who said to AIG you must make a decision of whether you want the derivative action to continue in the name of AIG.
-- so the board was required.
To look at the lawsuit understand what are should be conducted in AIG's behalf for the benefit of AIG's current.
I stress current shareholders remember 92%.
Of the shares of AIG were recently sold.
By the United States to new shareholders.
And so this -- board of directors have to take the time.
To understand the claims understand the legal issues understand where -- was coming from and his lawsuit.
And then make a judgment is this in the best interest of the current shareholders.
That was required upon AIG to do that.
And this is -- this was not.
We concluded that this is not in the best interest of the current -- almost.
Because of the the legal advice we received after careful thought.
And -- basically talked about the argument the probability of the argument winning.
The amount of damages that could occur a lot of -- job -- a -- -- years -- -- absolutely but it doesn't mean the judges said what's going to happen in the -- and the board concluded that the they disruption.
To our current company and the clients and everything else and and someone was not in the best interest of current shareholders we need to move this company forward.
And -- Hank I think has some very good arguments I think has some very good arguments in that case I sees them for a talk -- The fact is that we don't think it's in the best interest of our current shareholders.
To be involvement.
The fact is that people want this crisis behind them.
We want -- behind us we need to move forward remember oh yeah we do business with 97% of the fortune 1000.
They wanna see you Jose obvious scarlet letter on you if you went back at the government that rescued I think this issue has become.
What could this possibly be why would it make sense and and the fact is when you've it'll -- -- 55 done.
Well I think that if I can get 55 billion god bless our -- of his.
Bargaining -- in the presence of the -- like you can on after the fact to try to fix this coveted make it right you did that.
But his -- was at the time FitzGerald is half the time those shareholders.
Were -- pardon -- reference group royal and that that that this rescue ended up being a government funnel.
It's available but socks and a host of others.
Over which AIG had no control and under rates that were almost -- like.
So that this really wasn't a great deal for AIG.
And and -- that the PR on comparable nature of it notwithstanding.
It wasn't a good deal and it behooves present shareholders to wake up and realize.
I think that was in the best interest of the shareholders is that conclusions that the board came to I think Hank has some arguments the question is.
It was a tough deal was he called -- to this effect the -- Personally that you are -- he'd he had an opportunity to talk to the entire board and that is your lawyers and -- They made a decision not to be part of the lawsuit will win him right there with him right there -- -- was he taking.
He listen he appreciated the -- -- -- -- and his concern.
And is going to proceed and which he has did -- it took you personally and saying hey this is a stupid thing.
Hank is made it clear to me and every one else that the deal that was cut for AIG.
Was different than the deals offered others later on.
And so when you look at other companies do you think he's right on that just look I think he's got a lot of good things he's right about -- in the early did that rescue that AIG rescue was under such onerous terms.
Such unique terms.
That he has a unique Kate's.
He has a -- -- unique argument.
What the lawyers will say to you is does that mean that the United States.
Is legally obligated to treat everybody fairly I don't know there's such a rule.
Now what he will say is they took shares.
Due process and without shareholder votes -- he has a lot of legal arguments.
There's lawyers on both sides -- say we don't think that's a legal argument we don't think that's good at whatever the case for a bit.
He believes he's got a case -- -- -- good facts to go was his case.
We don't think this case belongs in our -- work we don't think it makes sense for this company.
To be involved in this kind of an issue right now we've got to rebuild the company that's the decisions the board made.
And based upon all those factors that's where we're moving forward we've got to move this company forward.
I appreciate what -- going through I understand what is going through.
As I said many many times the man has some really good arguments to question is in a court of law what -- -- prevail and that's a judgment but ultimately.