There are so many points of view on whether or not AIG should have paid its executives after the bail out it received from the government.
A contrarian, Andrew Ross Sorkin (no relation), makes a case for paying out the bonuses in his New York Times article, The Case for Paying the A.I.G. Bonuses. Legally, there are the issues of contract law. Can the government break a contract made among other parties? I question the bail out in the first place, but ever more now that the government is technically a shareholder. We bailed out AIG in return for control. Why did we not control and restrict the funds? As I recall the threats of "talent" leaving AIG used to put the fear into the law maker's bellies to pass the bail out. The "talend" left anyway. I disagree with Sorkin who says no one else knows how to undo the mess. We didn't want to believe that there were other experts. After all, the guys at AIG learned it from someone. Oh, perhaps it was Madoff!
As Americans, are we that stupid? Congress should be held just as accountable for letting loose our money without restricting its use, as AIG for using it for illicit bonuses. Granted, the company had prior compensation packages to deal with, but use other funds, not the tax payers' funds to pay those.
Here are possible solutions:
1. Charge AIG with the amount of money it paid out as bonuses.
2. Sue AIG for unfair business practices or rackerteering.
3. Simply ask for the money back.
4. Don't give any more money to any bank unless restricted.
Mina N. Sirkin is a legal expert in Estate Planning, Probate and Trust Law in Los Angeles, CA. MSirkin@SirkinLaw.com. http://SirkinLaw.com.