Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Starr argues it has standing to sue government in 2008 bailout of AIG

Reprints
Starr argues it has standing to sue government in 2008 bailout of AIG

WASHINGTON—Starr International Co. Inc. has asked a federal judge to allow it to go forward with a lawsuit that seeks $25 billion stemming from actions the government took in its 2008 rescue of American International Group Inc.

In a Thursday filing with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, Starr argued that—contrary to the government's position—it does have standing to seek compensation for losses suffered by AIG stockholders when the government took control of nearly 80% of AIG as the company approached collapse.

Starr, which is headed by former AIG CEO Maurice R. Greenberg, filed the suit against the government in November.

In the suit, Starr alleged that by taking control of nearly 80% of AIG in 2008, the federal government unconstitutionally took the property and rights of AIG's shareholders without compensation.

Beginning in 2008 “and continuing through at least January 2011, the government ignored the Constitution and singled out AIG common stock shareholders for discriminatory and unlawful treatment in clear violation of the takings, due process and equal protection clauses” of the U.S. Constitution, Starr said in the complaint.

Earlier this month, the government asked the Court of Federal Claims to dismiss the Starr suit, arguing that Starr had no standing to bring the suit, among other assertions.

In its response Thursday, Starr argued that it does have standing and reiterated that its constitutional rights were violated.

The “unprecedented actions represented an extraordinary exercise of government power and stood in stark contrast to the government's far more favorable treatment of similarly situated” entities that received federal assistance during the financial crisis, Starr said in its response.

Read Next