Skip Navigation
Conor Clarke

Conor Clarke - Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. More

Conor Clarke is the editor, with Michael Kinsley, of Creative Capitalism, an economics blog that was recently published in book form by Simon and Schuster. He was previously a fellow at The Atlantic and an editor at The Guardian. He is also on Twitter.

AIG Would Have Paid the Bonuses Anyway

By Conor Clarke
May 4 2009, 9:21 AM ET Comment

Ryan Grim had a nice scoop over the weekend: He uncovered a September 2008 letter from AIG's SEC filing in which Edward Liddy talks about the company's bonuses (or some portion of the bonuses). According to the Liddy letter, AIG committed to paying the bonuses even if the company experiences a "Change in Control":



I'm pleased to award you a Special Cash Retention award of $[•], payable in two installments of $[•] and $[•], on or about December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009. Additional terms of the award are set forth at the end of this letter.

in the event the AIG entity that is your employer (the "Company") experiences a Change in Control (e.g., consummation of a merger, consolidation, statutory share exchange or similar form of corporate transaction involving the sale or other disposition of all or substantially all of the Company's assets to an entity that is not an affiliate of the Company), AIG guarantees the payment of the 2008 Special Cash Retention award on the dates and under the conditions specified above.

I find two things about this letter interesting. One is that the letter is dated after the government takeover. But Liddy's argument has been that the controversial bonuses were approved before he was CEO. So does that mean these bonuses are something different? Here's Liddy in the Washington Post:

What also became clear is that once AIG's relationship with the government and taxpayers changed, our behavior as a company needed to change. [...] Make no mistake, had I been chief executive at the time, I would never have approved the retention contracts that were put in place more than a year ago. It was distasteful to have to make these payments. But we concluded that the risks to the company, and therefore the financial system and the economy, were unacceptably high.

Second, Liddy's letter is explicitly NOT guaranteeing the 2009 bonuses. Buy the company has previously made the argument that it is legally obligated to pay its previously awarded bonuses, of which this seems to be one. (From the AIG white paper on compensation: "Outside counsel has advised that AIG is legally obligated to pay and, under applicable law, risks a doubling of the amount owed as a penalty.") So what will happen to the bonuses that are supposed to be awarded in December of 2009? According to the SEC report, the company and the Department of Treasury are negotiating.   
Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Radical Life Extension Is Already Here, But We're Doing it Wrong Does Extending Life Go Against Evolution?
June 1book140 Shortlist: Whodunits June 1book140 Shortlist: Whodunits
Is Elizabeth Warren Native American or What? Is Elizabeth Warren Native American?
Why a Chinese Company Wants to Own Your Local Movie Theater Why a Chinese Company Wants to Own Your Local Cinema
Why Israeli Settlers Shot an Unarmed Palestinian Why Israeli Settlers Shot an Unarmed Palestinian

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

Earthquake in Northern Italy

May 22, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)