If you have an interest in this subject that we have dealt with in recent posts, here are some links to NY Times articles that deal with this subject in some detail. They are worth a read. They make it clear that the feds’ terms for the bailout of AIG were indeed “punitive” and harsher than those of other bailouts. Thus, one of the plaintiffs’ points (invidious disparity of treatment) is conceded. In his testimony, former Treasury Secretary Paulson conceded, and offered justifications for it. But, they do not really justify the difference in treatment of AIG as opposed to other bailed-out financial institutions. Lord knows there were lots of shady and reckless folks, who to put it mildly, were bad actors in the 2008 financial disaster, so why not be “punitive” with them, or at least some of them, too?
Besides, we are not aware of any legal doctrine that strips “bad” actors (who as yet haven’t been charged with or convicted of any criminal misconduct) of their constitutional rights. We expect that Mr. Boies will make much of that concession.
Here are the links:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/a-i-g-bailout-revisionists-version/
Note that the above article, though not labeled as being in the nature of an editorial, argues that the plaintiffs’ position is a “ludicrous tale.”
Also this one, on how that lawsuit is being funded:
Edited Oct. 7, 2014, at 12:17 PM Pacific time.