OT - another slimy CEO & a site that stays on top of these corporate sleezies

[Flasch186]

Nice people, these guys and gals at the top, who hold our savings and futures in their 401K's and etc. etc. etc.

Crappy people and they infest the corporate world with little or no conscience.

This is indefensible and i hope that every dime is given back to the stockholders and its employee's and some to charity....then throw his ass in jail.





Ex-AIG CEO gives $2.2B in stock to wife
Gift of 41.4 million shares given three days before Greenberg forced from post
April 13, 2005: 4:08 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones) - Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, who last month relinquished his posts as chairman and chief executive of American International Group Inc. ( AIG) amid intense regulatory scrutiny, reported Tuesday a gift of 41.4 million company shares to his wife, Corinne P. Greenberg.

According to a filing released by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the transaction took place March 11, three days before insurance titan AIG announced Greenberg had retired as president and CEO. The company said later in the month that Greenberg also would retire as chairman.

The shares Greenberg gifted to his wife are worth $2.2 billion at AIG's closing share price Tuesday of $53.20 .

As reported, Greenberg was interviewed Tuesday by regulators probing AIG's accounting. The regulators are looking into whether AIG, which Greenberg led for decades, used questionable financial transactions to improperly boost its results.

The SEC filing also disclosed that Greenberg exercised options on 11,012 shares last Friday and surrendered 5,780 shares to pay for the options exercise, retaining 5,232 shares.

Greenberg exercised options on the shares for $22.10 to $37.87 apiece.

Greenberg directly held 1.95 million AIG common shares after the transactions, and about 65.1 million shares indirectly, according to the filing. Greenberg's indirect holdings, however, apparently included the shares he gifted to his wife.

According to the SEC filing, Greenberg disclaims the beneficial ownership of shares of AIG common stock held by his wife and by trusts set up for his children and grandchildren.

For the latest on the corporate scandals, click here






http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/c...ion/index.html

[Buzzbee]

Ok, the accounting practices of the firm are in question. No suprise there. However, I'm confused. Are you saying he should be thrown in jail for the corporate accounting practices that are being investigated, or are you saying he should be thrown in jail because he gave 41 million shares to his wife?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Ok, the accounting practices of the firm are in question. No suprise there. However, I'm confused. Are you saying he should be thrown in jail for the corporate accounting practices that are being investigated, or are you saying he should be thrown in jail because he gave 41 million shares to his wife?

the fleecing....its unethical at least and illegal at best. 3 days prior to resigning!? C'mon!!! this is horseshit.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the fleecing....its unethical at least and illegal at best. 3 days prior to resigning!? C'mon!!! this is horseshit.

If he does it 1 year before he resigns is it ok?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

the fleecing....its unethical at least and illegal at best. 3 days prior to resigning!? C'mon!!! this is horseshit.

Were these his shares in the first place?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

If he does it 1 year before he resigns is it ok?

um, perhaps (at least it would PR better)....it depends, read forced to resign, sprinkle in some investigations, then add in this "gift" Id say the mounting evidence is that he has no morals and wouldnt hesitate to steal from this public company. Again, this is the sort of shit that the stockholders will eventually sue him and the company over and win.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Were these his shares in the first place?

"indirectly" from what I gathered but not his outright.

[Buzzbee]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

um, perhaps (at least it would PR better)....it depends, read forced to resign, sprinkle in some investigations, then add in this "gift" Id say the mounting evidence is that he has no morals and wouldnt hesitate to steal from this public company. Again, this is the sort of shit that the stockholders will eventually sue him and the company over and win.

So far, there is no proof that he has broken any law. They are investigating the accounting practices, but there has been no declaration of wrongdoing or responsibility on his part. (However, I agree that where there is smoke, there is fire).

The gift was apparently him setting up a trust for his wife and children. There is no mention that the gift was illegal. Was the timing curious? Sure, but not illegal or immoral. The only thing that is in question is if those 41 million shares were counted as part of his holdings after the gift was made.

Again Flasch, you have climbed to the top of the mountain and shouted "Crucify him" when he hasn't been proven to be guilty. Again Flasch it undermines your argument (I've told you this before, but you never listen). Again, there is merit to your argument but you destroy any credibility you have by making such outrageous condemnations. Again it is easy for me to point out the fallacies of your argument because you fly off the handle and deal with sensationalism rather than facts.

Again, I'll walk away and wonder if you'll ever learn.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

Sure, but not illegal or immoral.

and this is where our paths diverge....they dont have to be both. Just because something isn't illegal doesnt mean its not immoral. Im not a fan of legal morality so Im condoning combining the two lest we have a church for a state....

What he did IS immoral and if I could i would punish him myself. What he did is indefensible and their is only one reason greed and the feeling that one is better than everyone else.

[stkelly52]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

What he did IS immoral and if I could i would punish him myself. What he did is indefensible and their is only one reason greed and the feeling that one is better than everyone else.

Could you please explain to me what it is that he did that was immoral? I agree that it seems questionable, and it is possible that he did something immoral/illegal and is preparing his excape route should he get caught, but I didn't see any statement of anything that he did wrong.

[Marc Vaughan]

Personally speaking I'm always somewhat bemused at how quickly people are to shout 'immoral' or 'unethical' at someone when they're rich and doing something legal for financial reasons, when in contrast often they'd turn a blind eye if a friend pocket a $10 bill they were given in error by an assistant in a shop.

Yes, rich people can do 'dodges' with their money that the rest of us aren't able to - however this isn't their fault and lets face it if we were in their position we'd probably do the same. Any 'problems' with these dodges are due to the laws and goverments, not individuals imho ....

(personally speaking I don't particularly want to be rich, for some bizarre reason I always find I'm happier when I'm skint (which I invariably am ) ... I believe its something to do with people pulling together in times of problem/scarcity while generally being more selfish when prospering)

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by stkelly52

Could you please explain to me what it is that he did that was immoral? I agree that it seems questionable, and it is possible that he did something immoral/illegal and is preparing his excape route should he get caught, but I didn't see any statement of anything that he did wrong.

you said it....


MArc:

Stealing is stealing regardless if its an error or not. If it were a friend over 18 I would let them now how dissappointed I was and let them know that in my view, what had happened is stealing. Under 18, and I'd make every effort to walk their asses back in there to return it. Just because One is rich and can afford an accountant who is slimy doesnt mean it is right to "hide" or give a gift of shares that arent yours yet.

[st.cronin]

If he declared the gift to the SEC it's hard to see how it could be illegal. I'm not sure what's immoral about it either.

CEO's get paid way too much - their compensation is totally whack. I don't really see the need to pillory them as individuals, though.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Stealing is stealing regardless if its an error or not. If it were a friend over 18 I would let them now how dissappointed I was and let them know that in my view, what had happened is stealing. Under 18, and I'd make every effort to walk their asses back in there to return it. Just because One is rich and can afford an accountant who is slimy doesnt mean it is right to "hide" or give a gift of shares that arent yours yet.

I agree with you on the 'change' front.

However I have to admit that in practice if I had the option not to pay some tax to the goverment because I could employ a loop hole in tax-law to avoid doing so then I'd use it, as I believe would most people.

Many years ago when I had my own company (pre working at SI) I looked into which setup (either as a sole trader or Public limited company) would allow me to pay less tax - I took the option of the one which left me with the most money.

Was it 'greedy' or me to do yes, yeah I'd guess so - although I give money to charities etc. I do have the type of personality where I want to be the person making the choices about where my money goes and I object to the goverment skimming it off from my pay-packet, especially when they seem to waste so much of it on pointless things ....

To me my making that choice was no different to the person 'hiding' his shares, yeah the scales different - but that doesn't make it any more 'right' or 'wrong' than my choice imho.

(and yeah I'm in an arguementative mood this afternoon - don't know why ... my wife says I enjoy debating too much )

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

CEO's get paid way too much - their compensation is totally whack. I don't really see the need to pillory them as individuals, though.

This I agree on whole heartedly and its something society I feel has totally out of whack, I fail to see why movie stars and sports men earn more than nurses and doctors for instance ....

(indeed to a certain extent I'm still amazed that I can support my family by making games ...)

[Arles]

The reasons CEOs get paid so highly is that it is an extremely risky position. You become the CEO of a major company and it has revenue issues or even hits a rough stretch in the economy, you get tossed out and (in many cases) are never really able to work in the industry again. You are there to be the scapegoat for anything that happens to the company. Think of them like a head football coach with a one-time shot. If they didn't pay out the wazzou, who the heck would take the job? Seven times out of ten, a major CEO is committing career suicide (it's just a matter of how many years can he stave of that death).

[Flasch186]

perhaps somone could let me know what it means to have stock "indirectly" because that is what we are talking about...I was/am under the impression that that means that they weren't his to give "right now".

[Maple Leafs]

I don't see the issue with the stock gift. Whether he was resigning or not, those options are his to exercise as he sees fit. It's not unusual for executives to transfer stock or other benefits to a spouse for tax or other reasons. It's not like he was taking from the company account -- that was his own compensation he was sending her way.

Now the accounting practices could be a different story

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

perhaps somone could let me know what it means to have stock "indirectly" because that is what we are talking about...I was/am under the impression that that means that they weren't his to give "right now".

Depends on what you're talking about. There are different laws for what constitute "indirect" holdings depending on whether you're talking about securities law, state law or tax law.

I suspect what the article means is that these shares were held by a trust or a different legal entity that Greenberg controlled. Like a single member LLC or an investment partnership or something.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Depends on what you're talking about. There are different laws for what constitute "indirect" holdings depending on whether you're talking about securities law, state law or tax law.

I suspect what the article means is that these shares were held by a trust or a different legal entity that Greenberg controlled. Like a single member LLC or an investment partnership or something.

In that case than does he have the right to gift them, since theyre not his? at the moment?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

In that case than does he have the right to gift them, since theyre not his? at the moment?

Depends on what type of entity they're in and what the governing documents of the entity state, how much control he has etc.

Most likely I would say with a gift this large, and to a related party he cleared it with his legal counsel and tax advisors first. If he didn't, he's an idiot.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Depends on what type of entity they're in and what the governing documents of the entity state, how much control he has etc.

Most likely I would say with a gift this large, and to a related party he cleared it with his legal counsel and tax advisors first. If he didn't, he's an idiot.

Well his company AIG has been under investigation basically, forever, now SOOOO.....

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Even more reason for me to think he checked with his lawyer before he gifted.

...but the lawyer is 7 years old and can only talk during P.E.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well his company AIG has been under investigation basically, forever, now SOOOO.....

Even more reason for me to think he checked with his lawyer before he gifted.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...but the lawyer is 7 years old and can only talk during P.E.

Can he even see over the conference room table then?

FWIW, I'm not defending Greenberg. I don't know enough about what went down at AIG to form an opinion about it one way or another. I just deal with a lot of related party transactions, and the lawyers are always involved. Especially when setting up family trusts. If, in Greenberg's case if he didn't involve his lawyer, I question his professional judgement.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Arles

Ten times out of ten, a major CEO is winning the lottery.

Fixed.

[st.cronin]

Uh... wrong, timmy. Arles is right. CEO is what everybody with an MBA aspires to... few get there. Those that do, a lot of times it's a bad deal - they end up unemployed, like my uncle did. He was unemployed for over a year after his company went under. It's often a VERY risky gig to take.

Now, many CEOs are grossly overpaid. Part of the reason for this is the risk, but part of it also is the way CEO pay is determined, which is kind of a shady game. But the reality is that, for the most part, the CEOs themselves are decent, ethical people.

[timmynausea]

I didn't judge their character at all.
If you examine it from the perspective of a career higher up business person, you could potentially see a short-lived/failed stint as CEO as a bad move. If you compare that to the persepctive of a guy that works in the factories the company owns, any time as CEO is a great move. (Cause on average a CEO makes over 500x the wages of the average worker and that stat is from 2000 so it's probably more than that by now.)

[Desnudo]

The system of deciding compensation for CEO's isn't shady, it's outrageous. Of course a CEO should be compensated for the risk, it's why higher management positions receive higher pay than line workers. That doesn't mean that the CEO's golf buddies on the board should be responsible for handing out the cash.

I'd like to see compensation decided at the annual shareholders meeting by proxy vote. Then we'd see what the people who matter think of a CEO's performance.

[Koryo]

Gifts aren't unethical. This story is only newsworthy because the gift was so generous.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Koryo

Gifts aren't unethical. This story is only newsworthy because the gift was so generous.

or it was something he didn't have the right to give....could be either.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm sure the legality (or lack thereof) of Mr. Greenberg's actions will come out in the wash from the accounting investigation. However, to me it smacks of someone attempting to "shelter" some ill-gotten games.


As for those here defending CEOs, especially CEOs of large corporations, I'd like to point out that by a certain definition it's not a high-risk occupation. Fact is that the majority of CEOs at these institutions earn a lot of money and the majority also have lucrative exit clauses. Thus, no matter what they do to the company, they'll walk away with a lot of money. Where's the risk?

Sure, in some cases it may take them a few years to find a new job, but if I had a couple million to sit on while I looked for a new job, I don't think I'd be all that worried.

However, in most cases they're simply on to the next job. Fact is, once you reach a certain level as an executive, it's impossible to "fail". Sure, you may get booted out from one position, but you'll end up in another one in time, and in the meantime you've got a huge cushion of money to support yourself and your family (unless you've blown it all).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As for those here defending CEOs, especially CEOs of large corporations, I'd like to point out that by a certain definition it's not a high-risk occupation. Fact is that the majority of CEOs at these institutions earn a lot of money and the majority also have lucrative exit clauses. Thus, no matter what they do to the company, they'll walk away with a lot of money. Where's the risk?

It is a high risk occupation in the same way that being a major league baseball player is a high risk occupation. Most candidates for CEO positions NEVER get CEO positions, even though they have acquired all the right skills.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It is a high risk occupation in the same way that being a major league baseball player is a high risk occupation. Most candidates for CEO positions NEVER get CEO positions, even though they have acquired all the right skills.

Distinction: You're talking about CEO candidates. I'm talking about CEOs. Once you have become a CEO (or any executive at a mid to large corporation), it's no longer "high-risk", at least in a financial sense.

Fact is, the money these folks make (even non-CEO executives) in one year would set up a lot of families for a lifetime. Yes, there's career risk, but their days of financial risk are over. Arguably, as well, their level of career risk is about the same as everyone else's, in today's economy.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Distinction: You're talking about CEO candidates. I'm talking about CEOs. Once you have become a CEO (or any executive at a mid to large corporation), it's no longer "high-risk", at least in a financial sense.

But the financial rewards are there in part because of the riskiness of the career path. I don't know how you can separate that.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But the financial rewards are there in part because of the riskiness of the career path. I don't know how you can separate that.

High risk in that you might only get to be a junior executive and maybe only make 4 or 5 times what the average worker makes? (I'm speaking in terms of the qualified candidates who never get to be CEOs, of course.)

[judicial clerk]

I don't think it is that high-risk. These guys often times land on their feet. I think it is more accurate to say that the pay is based on the level of responsibility that goes with the position. I think that the problem with the CEO compensation is that the people who set the CEO's salary, the board of directors, are part of an old boys network who are more than willing to overpay because that same old-boy network will overpay them when it is their turn to feed at the trough.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As for those here defending CEOs, especially CEOs of large corporations, I'd like to point out that by a certain definition it's not a high-risk occupation. Fact is that the majority of CEOs at these institutions earn a lot of money and the majority also have lucrative exit clauses. Thus, no matter what they do to the company, they'll walk away with a lot of money. Where's the risk?

You're correct, it's not that much of a risk right now. However, if you change the landscape and drastically cut the pay/benefits of a CEO (as many here seem to be in favor of), it becomes a very unattractive position.

If someone joins a major company as a CEO - most have only one shot. If the company doesn't make it, their career is basically over in the business world (again, in most cases). No one wants to hire a guy that just was removed by "company X" to lead their company when there are so many "untainted" people out there. So, they better be paid well to go through that risk.

Again, CEOs are paid to be big targets that are dropped the moment the heat gets on. Most know this going in, and the pay reflects that. It allows investors/the board to save face on Wall Street without having to impact their board or core business.

The end result is that if CEOs did not provide a valuable service to the board or set of investors, they wouldn't be paid as much.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

I don't think it is that high-risk. These guys often times land on their feet. I think it is more accurate to say that the pay is based on the level of responsibility that goes with the position. I think that the problem with the CEO compensation is that the people who set the CEO's salary, the board of directors, are part of an old boys network who are more than willing to overpay because that same old-boy network will overpay them when it is their turn to feed at the trough.

I think it's more because this person will represent their company to investors, the media and Wall Street. And one small mistake or unprepared gaff can cost a company millions in share price. If you are a board of a company grossing 2-3 billion a year, it's peanuts to pay a capable CEO a few million (much of it in options) if you figure the risk in going with someone that won't handle the media/wall street/investors as well.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arles

The end result is that if CEOs did not provide a valuable service to the board or set of investors, they wouldn't be paid as much.

I think we can all concede that most (if not all) CEOs are grossly overpaid.

[Buzzbee]

From the SEC Filing:

5. Mr. Greenberg is a trustee of certain trusts for the benefit of his children
and grandchildren. In addition, ownership of shares of common stock held by Mr.
Greenberg's wife may be attributed to Mr. Greenberg. This transaction
represents a gift of 41,399,802 shares to Corinne P. Greenberg. Mr. Greenberg
disclaims the beneficial ownership of, and any pecuniary interest in, the
shares of AIG common stock held by these trusts and by his wife.

So, it sounds like the SEC says the 41 million he gifted to his wife are indirect holdings because he is the trustee. Mr. Greenberg seems to be claiming that he doesn't have any beneficial ownership because they are trusts for his wife and children and he doesn't have any ownership.

Seems like a grey area. At this point it looks like there is absolutely NOTHING that indicates this is under scrutiny for being illegal. As far as I can tell it is simply a matter of determining if those securities can be counted as 'his' assets.

My assumption is that it is relevant because of tax purposes if he sells them.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think we can all concede that most (if not all) CEOs are grossly overpaid.

I think it really depends. For the major companies, I can see why they get paid so much. CEOs take legal responsibility for everything that goes on in the company regardless if they knew about it or not. They are in charge of handling the media in numerous different venues and responsible for dealing directly with Wall Street. Even if you discount the risk in being responsible for about 30,000-40,000 people you may never talk to you in your life, the service a CEO provides with "the Street" is critical to any major company. If a CEO has a bad interview, doesn't grade well with Wall Street or doesn't defend the company's actions correctly, that act may cost the company millions and millions of dollars in share price. When you figure that the CEO is in those situations every week, I certainly understand why some bigger companies may "overpay" to have the best person they can.

Most CEOs of smaller companies either started the company or were heavily involved in its creation and are often main owners/shareholders themselves. So, if they leave with a lot of cash, it's probably because of their ownership created on the company's inception.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Buzzbee

From the SEC Filing:


So, it sounds like the SEC says the 41 million he gifted to his wife are indirect holdings because he is the trustee. Mr. Greenberg seems to be claiming that he doesn't have any beneficial ownership because they are trusts for his wife and children and he doesn't have any ownership.

Seems like a grey area. At this point it looks like there is absolutely NOTHING that indicates this is under scrutiny for being illegal. As far as I can tell it is simply a matter of determining if those securities can be counted as 'his' assets.

My assumption is that it is relevant because of tax purposes if he sells them.

The term "attributed" is a key word here. That's a tax term used when there are transactions between related parties. This disclosure is mostly for tax purposes (For anyone who wants to look it up it's IRC section 267 and 318.).

But I have to note that simply because he is a trustee doesn't mean these shares are "indirectly" his. It depends on what kind of trust it is, what the trust document says, etc. I don't expect those details to be in an SEC filing.

As a trustee, he controls the assets of the trust and can do what he wishes with them so long as it doesn't violate the trust statutes of whatever state the trust is domiciled in.

He certainly had the legal authority to transfer the shares.

[st.cronin]

What you're leaving out Arles is that CEO pay is mostly determined by other CEOs. It's as though, in MLB, players arbitrated the arbitration cases. If players started acting as arbitrators players would 1) ask for more money and 2) almost always get that money, which would result in 3) escalating salaries everywhere.

What bugs me, though, is the characterization of these CEOs as 'scum' or 'slime' when even some of the ones convicted of crimes have long been known as exceedingly generous people. What they are are people, like you and me, who work in a field that needs to establish new ethical standards.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What you're leaving out Arles is that CEO pay is mostly determined by other CEOs. It's as though, in MLB, players arbitrated the arbitration cases. If players started acting as arbitrators players would 1) ask for more money and 2) almost always get that money, which would result in 3) escalating salaries everywhere.

What bugs me, though, is the characterization of these CEOs as 'scum' or 'slime' when even some of the ones convicted of crimes have long been known as exceedingly generous people. What they are are people, like you and me, who work in a field that needs to establish new ethical standards.

I think that's a good comparison (the arbitration). And, just like in baseball, if you are the New York Yankees and have a young, arbitration eligible pitcher that just went 22-8 with a 3.23 ERA and has a hefty arbitration number (ie, $8 mil), you will be more likely to pay for him than a team like Kansas City - who may instead choose to trade him before the arbitration case is heard.

When you look at major corps, they have so much on the line from a business standpoint with a CEO, that they would rather have an "expensive" star than a "value" that may or may not pan out. Again, it's like the difference between The Yankees and A's.

[Buzzbee]

For some perspective:

AIG is 10th on the Fortune 500 list.
It has 86,000 employees
It had 81.3 Billion in revenues in 2003
It has operations in 130 countries
It manages 678 Billion in assets


It doesn't seem so cut and dried as to how much you should pay the single person who is named as the head of that organization and ultimately responsible for its operation.

On one hand paying $10 million, $5 million or even $2 million seems like overkill to pay one person as compensation. On the other hand, $10 million seems a pittance when compared to a company with $678 billion in assets and 86,000 employees to protect.

Also, while executives get extremely large salaries, it seems that large chunks of their compensation come in the form of stock options. The reward is tremendous, but only if the company performs. It is certainly an incentive for the executives to work hard to improve the company, but it also seems to be an incentive to make the company look better than it really might be.

No real agenda here other than to make people stop and think.

[Galaxy]

What about people like Jack Welch? The guy was on 60 minutes for getting a pretty decent retirement package, and I believe he was worth about $700-$800 million (before the idoit forked over half of it in his second divorce). But the "salary" he did was peanuts as compared to the stock captilazation and profits he earned. Was he overpaid?

One thing that bothers me is the serverance package given out to people like Carly of Hewlett-Packard. I don't mind Bonuses for success, as which is where alot of CEO's win. I would hate to be a CEO for the reasons noted by Arles, plus the workload. You would not have life outside of that job.

[Flasch186]

So some of you were right...it wasn't illegal....


Just slimy. Glad to see our peole at the top, our economic leadership setting such a high benchmark...we should all be proud. Those of you defending this behavior should expect more.


Greenberg's gift gambit may fail
WSJ: Transfer of $2.3 billion in shares to his wife may not shield his fortune from future lawsuits.
April 14, 2005: 6:49 AM EDT

Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg gave his wife the vast majority of his $2.3 billion in shares of American International Group Inc. (AIG) in an effort to shield the fortune from future lawsuits, a person close to his legal team told The Wall Street Journal.

Though this person said the tactic wasn't intended to protect the fortune from any lawsuits that could spring from the current accounting scandal at AIG, Mr. Greenberg wanted to protect the wealth he built up during nearly four decades running the financial company from unrelated litigation that might later crop up.

Estate-planning experts have been scratching their heads over why Mr. Greenberg, 79 years old, would have transferred the shares to his wife last month, given that there appears to be no concrete tax advantage to his estate in doing so. White-collar lawyers noted that, should Mr. Greenberg ever face fines or civil judgments against him in connection with the months-long accounting probes into AIG, the transfer isn't likely to stop government agencies or victorious plaintiffs from tapping the huge fortune in company stock.

Ordinarily, successful plaintiffs or the government can get their hands on assets of a defendant's spouse if a court is convinced the assets were transferred specifically to protect them from litigation that a defendant saw coming down the pike. However, the transfer can withstand plaintiffs' challenge more easily if it was made well before any lawsuit loomed, lawyers said.

-Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Theo Francis and Ian McDonald contributed to this article. Dow Jones Newswires 04-14-05 0519ET Copyright (C) 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Top of page

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

So some of you were right...it wasn't illegal....


Just slimy. Glad to see our peole at the top, our economic leadership setting such a high benchmark...we should all be proud. Those of you defending this behavior should expect more.


Greenberg's gift gambit may fail
WSJ: Transfer of $2.3 billion in shares to his wife may not shield his fortune from future lawsuits.
April 14, 2005: 6:49 AM EDT

Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg gave his wife the vast majority of his $2.3 billion in shares of American International Group Inc. (AIG) in an effort to shield the fortune from future lawsuits, a person close to his legal team told The Wall Street Journal.

Though this person said the tactic wasn't intended to protect the fortune from any lawsuits that could spring from the current accounting scandal at AIG, Mr. Greenberg wanted to protect the wealth he built up during nearly four decades running the financial company from unrelated litigation that might later crop up.

Estate-planning experts have been scratching their heads over why Mr. Greenberg, 79 years old, would have transferred the shares to his wife last month, given that there appears to be no concrete tax advantage to his estate in doing so. White-collar lawyers noted that, should Mr. Greenberg ever face fines or civil judgments against him in connection with the months-long accounting probes into AIG, the transfer isn't likely to stop government agencies or victorious plaintiffs from tapping the huge fortune in company stock.

Ordinarily, successful plaintiffs or the government can get their hands on assets of a defendant's spouse if a court is convinced the assets were transferred specifically to protect them from litigation that a defendant saw coming down the pike. However, the transfer can withstand plaintiffs' challenge more easily if it was made well before any lawsuit loomed, lawyers said.

-Wall Street Journal Staff Reporters Theo Francis and Ian McDonald contributed to this article. Dow Jones Newswires 04-14-05 0519ET Copyright (C) 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Top of page

So if you thought you were going to be sued you'd just sit around and leave your assets unprotected?

Hmmm...I'm going to have to think of something to sue you for, your new house rocks. I want it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

So if you thought you were going to be sued you'd just sit around and leave your assets unprotected?

Hmmm...I'm going to have to think of something to sue you for, your new house rocks. I want it.

Its the idea that he did wrong BEFORE, and now he is like a snake in the grass hiding. He shouldnt have done wrong before IMO whatever the courts dole out is exactly wha he should get. If you live an honest life you dont have these things to have to scurry from.

thanks for the compliment about he house. I get couches on tues. ill add to the "crap house" thread