Starr vs US regarding AIG

Article in the NYT about the Starr suit against the federal government.

It would truly be wonderful if we saw some evenhanded coverage that showed exactly what the government did and did wrong when it used AIG's value to bail-out much of wall street.  Even if the actions were necessary to preserve the financial system, it doesn't mean that AIG shareholders should have uniquely borne so much of the burden of those actions.

The use of AIG as a conduit to make other parts of the financial system whole was a panicked reaction by the government to the crisis.  Taking the government at face value that there was no malice does not justify the use of government powers to act so inequitably.  Some recompense is appropriate.

The following statement from the NYT article captures what I have been writing for years: 

The decision to use taxpayer and A.I.G. money to repurchase soured mortgage deals that the company insured for big banks in the form of credit-default swaps amounted to a “backdoor bailout” of Wall Street, the lawsuit says.

Intellectual Property and China

Perhaps it is cases like this (Huawei sues ZTE for infringement) that will lead the way to a maturing perspective on IP in China.  Not "us vs. them" but rather an evolution to creating enough value that it is worth protecting.

rio tinto and bribery

I have to admit I haven't read all that's available but precisely what does it mean to "bribe" an executive at a foreign company?  The idea that the executives were paid AND received secret information is wacky - paying to receive and being paid to divulge make sense.  But somehow being paid to receive useful information?  And, separate from embezzlement or corporate opportunity, what exactly is a bribe of a private individual or company?  Strange.

Andrew Cuomo and corporate finance

Someone should really sit Andrew Cuomo down and explain that, even if BofA defrauded its shareholders by recklessly merging with Merrill, it only makes things worse to sue BofA and ask for payment of damages to the shareholders and the state.  I fear that Cuomo (and those before him (I'm looking at you prostie man) and most elected officials) are completely unaware that a company can't pay its own shareholders damages...

campaign finance

Hadn't realized that there were meaningful challenges to campaign finance rules coming up. Thank goodness. I still don't understand: (i) why is a politician permitted to sell an advertisement (i.e., a book published in connection with a campaign) but not to buy an advertisement; (ii) how can it possibly be legal to penalize a candidate for private efforts on their behalf; and (iii) how can we possibly distinguish between spending money and giving time when it comes to campaign finance limits?

New Haven Firefighters

"Daniel P. Westman, a Washington-area lawyer who works extensively in labor and employment law, said: “This is a ruling that every business covered by Title VII will need to take into account. Some companies may have thought this was just a public sector firefighter case that would not apply outside the government employment context, but that is not the case.” Mr. Westman said the decision could affect hiring, firing and discipline in the workplace, as well as promotions."

I find this baffling - doesn't the ruling confirm that an employer should not consider race (which is the simple lay interpretation of current legal obligations) when making hiring, firing and discipline (and other) decisions? I would think the ruling makes no change to current decisionmaking except those who WERE considering race when making decisions.