legal eagle
Recent Comments
-
Contact Us
Editorial Staff
- Executive Editor
- Bess Levin
- Editor
- Matt Levine
How Can We Help You?
- Send tips to:
tips@dealbreaker.com - For tech issues email:
web@dealbreaker.com - For advertising or events email:
advertising@breakingmedia.com - For research or custom solutions email:
services@breakingmedia.com
- Dealbreaker is published by Breaking Media.
For a full list of our sites, services and staff visit breakingmedia.com
Markets
-
Topics
AIG Bank of America Barclays Bear Stearns Ben Bernanke bonuses bonus watch Charlie Gasparino Citi Citigroup CNBC David Einhorn Deutsche Bank Dick Bové FOREX Galleon Group Goldman Sachs hedge fund managers Hedge Funds insider-trading Insider Trading Fest(ivus) 2010 Jamie Dimon John Paulson JPMorgan Ken Lewis Lawsuits Layoffs Lehman Brothers Lloyd Blankfein Made-off MBA v CFA Merrill Lynch Morgan Stanley Obama's Economic Superfriends performance Raj Rajaratnam RBS SAC Capital SEC Steve Cohen taxes Tim Geithner UBS Vikram Pandit Warren Buffett-
Can you defend your story ?. Heard from the grapevine that Tobin has engaged several Wall Street Lawyers to come after you. Take care.
@7: Solid. Thank you for giving me a nice laugh on a day when it seems I'm the only one in the office.
ROIs that suck -- Nice.
Williams and Connolly represented these guys. Arguably the best litigation firm in the country. Goes to show what good lawyering can do--these guys would have been (should have been?) behind bars had most anyone else represented them. And Tax Chick and guest--nice use of Learned Hand (yeah, I'm a nerd ...). -- Finance attorney with great admiration for W&C
Sugardaddy should get a cheesesteak. Whatever happened to that celebratory ritual anyway?
42: If it's like the GM UST agreement, then the loan converts into a DIP loan upon BK. Also, regarding the liens, Chrysler's senior secured lenders probably had to enter into waivers to either waive the limitations on liens to allow the UST either a first or second priority lien, depending on the collateral. Not that abnormal for restructuring deals: "Waive your rights or we won't lend and the company goes under."
Still the best AIG commercial (and possibly one of the best commercials) I've ever seen: http://www.jeroenbours.com/gallery.php?type=work&uid=88
80: I think a lot of people are missing the point here, and therefore misdirecting the argument. It's absolutely irrelevant whether $250k is a lot of money. What's relevant is that the government is stepping in and dictating a salary cap. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. Now, if there was some provision built into the TARP that said, if you take these loans from gov't you will be subject to X,Y & Z restrictions until the termination of this contract, that would be one thing, but that is not what's going on here. Parties negotiate terms and come to some reasonable meeting point in every contract, BEFORE they sign those contracts. But, entering into a contract with someone and then unilaterally determining, at a later point, that the other party is subject to additional restrictions is mind-blowing.
Fight the power Vik! Now would be an awesome time for some random country to ease its incorporation/corporate laws and offer loans to pay off TARP money to any bank that is willing to incorporate in its jurisdiction. It seems that daily the US is getting less and less competitive.
Isn't prostitution legal in Rhode Island as long as it's not done outside? So, if you take the job, you may be signing up for more than you'd anticipated. http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001203.html
Cluzo: Very good point. In that case, base salary could go up much more, which would further defeat much of the purpose of the bill.
I don't really understand why anyone is shocked by this. Angered, fine, but shocked, nonsense. One of the first rules of contract law is that the other party is out to f*ck you in any way it can, which is why we have contracts in the first place--to reduce the moral hazard of transactions If you create a contract that contains no restrictions, covenants, etc., then of course the other party will do whatever the hell it wants, because it's not restricted. Thus, just because the government gives AIG, a bank, or whomever, cash does not mean that the receiving company has to, all of the sudden and magically, behave ethically. It's all just grandstanding and B.S. If the gov't truly wanted companies indebted to it to behave differently, it would have to contract for it, but that would look socialist by nature, and also (probably) wouldn't fly. And this is what happens when the gov't gets involved in private business, there seems to be no easy answer, possibly no right answer, and probably no good way out.
Question: Why do we care more about a bonus payout that is (relatively) small than the fact that taxpayer money is being given to AIG so that AIG can pay out its obligations to it's CDS counter parties (banks) at par? I know many argue that this is simply another bank bailout in disguise. But really I don't like this at all--if AIG can't pay back its obligations, it should renegotiate like any other sh*tty company and settle for something less than par. Needless to say, the bonus thing is absurd, but I'm more livid about the CDS payout using gov't money.
6452
11:57
Question to all of you who feign enlightenment on this board and think you may have the answer to the economic crisis: What would you have liked to see happen/how would you have liked to see a bill structured? You seem to want to blame the Obama administration for the current market failure, but you forget that neither he nor his cabinet actually caused the problem. Idiot lending, government incentive to lend to unworthy individuals and poor judgment by those individuals (among other things) caused this mess. And the banks, our "great capitalistic institutions," were the ones lobbying for government intervention to support their failing enterprises. I think the government should have just let the big players fail and let smaller, better capitalized banks gobble up the good assets (or, if there weren't any good assets left, let them fail anyway). And yes, this would have put me out of a job. But I'm tired of incentivizing failure. That's my rant of the week. Interested in your thoughts of what the gov't should, or should not, have done.
On every deal I or my colleagues do, we do a lien search, which includes a search for tax liens. On many of them, we find a tax lien. Most are immaterial, so no one really cares (though we do recommend the business pays them off as good business practice). Basic point, this isn't really that big of a deal, it happens all the time and it doesn't mean that the party in question is a criminal, or even stupid. And I'm not jumping on the "Obama bandwagon" here, I just think that some of the crap that we and our media are currently getting caught up with is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant.
I dunno, but I bet someone just put a slightly less than $1 billion dollar hit on him.
Not directly related to this post, but well done Dealbreaker for getting a shout-out on CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/28656318 And 5, ironic isn't it that a guy would name his firm after the Greek word for "selfless and sacrificial love" and then rob his followers. Way to shepherd your flock ...
1) Ron Gettelfinger 2) Because he stands for everything I hate 3) Burned until reduced to ashes 4) Save the ashes until Barney Frank buys a new car, then mix the ashes into the newly smelted chassis of the car so Barney can forever be cursed and haunted by the ghosts of his past.