Connecticut AG Doubts AIG Required To Pay Bonuses Under Connecticut Law– Reuters
Comments (13)
Leave a comment
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
- Use the Bloomberg command
NH BLG_DEALBREAKER <GO>
to access Dealbreaker
email: tips@dealbreaker.com
text: (646) 820-4847
call: (212) 334-1871
all tips are anonymous
Connecticut AG Doubts AIG Required To Pay Bonuses Under Connecticut Law– Reuters
You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.
CT has an AG?
Great! AIG should reincorporate in CT, and wish Cuomo and friends well in future tax receipts.
Not defending AIG, but if these were, in fact, retention bonuses, and the employee stayed the requsite time period and did their job, they are entitled to the money. I see many commentators scoffing at the fact that some of the bonuses went to former employees – as long as they stayed through the retention period set forth in their agreement, they should get their money. Many businesses going through a period of dramatic change (such as a sale or merger, or in this case, near death), elect to give key personnel retention bonuses so they do not leave and cause great disruption to the company.
Also, I wonder what Grassley would want the Senators and Congressmen who received huge amounts of contributions to do – should they also commit suicide? If so, Grassley should be first in line, given how much money he received from them.
@3- it’s already come out today taht in at least 11 cases, they weren’t retention bonuses.
http://dealbreaker.com/2009/03/do-it-frank-get-angry.php
@4 i doubt they gave bonuses to people that had already left. they gave bonuses to 11 people who have since left and therefore no longer work there.
@5- then, by definition, they aren’t bloody retention bonuses. if a “retention” bonus is offered, and you accept it, it’s expected the company will retain you as an employee. if it doesn’t, it’s just a bonus.
@6 – Which is more likely a) if someone accepts a retention bonus, they are tied to that company for the rest of their life or b) these people were expected to stay on for a stipulated period of time, after which their bonus would be paid and their obligation to stay would be over.
@6 a “contractually agreed” to bonus
In Obamaland, contracts abrogate you!
It’s all about fairness. Is your mortgage too expensive? – then it shall be lowered. Did you agree to pay too much to an employee? – then it shall be lowered. All should be fair and affordable. What is wrong with such a system. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
So, in this case, if AIG did in fact break the law what will be the punishment? Fine them? HA! It’s certain that nobody will do any time. Just political grandstanding to take the attention off of Obama’s largely ineffective stimulus package/his entire administration and focus it on overpaid executives to drum up support from the masses.
#1 and 2 recipients of AIG donations – Chrissie Dodd and BH Obama. FOllow the money. They and all other Congressmen should give back their donations to US via the US Treasury. If they want the bonuses back, they should give back their donations.
@9
[Did you agree to pay too much to an employee? - then it shall be lowered.]
Did you ever pay an employee with American tax dollars who acted in a grossly negligent manner to bankrupt your company?
@6 – A retention bonus that vests prior to the end of the period for which the employer wants to retain the employee would allow the employee to take the money, leave and then the employer would have to claw back the payment. Thus, retention bonuses are only paid out after the desired retention period has ended. This is the first thing a person would know about structuring a retention bonus. It’s amazing that you consider your opinion worthwhile for some reason when you basically blurt out that you don’t know the first thing about retention bonuses.