THE COURT: You know, I thought by analogy, it’s like if I owned a nice house in the country, it’s sort of analogous to a situation where the government might say, Well, you still own your house, but we’re going to make you live only in the master bedroom.
From page 66, line 11:
THE COURT: No. But, I mean, one view of the case — and it’s not farfetched; it seems plausible — is that the government took the stock. They didn’t pay anything for it. I guess 500,000 they paid for it. And then they pocketed the revenue from the sale. I mean, come on.
MR. DINTZER: Your Honor, the — so when you say the term — and I just want to make sure that I’m clear in my answer — when you use the term “took the stock,” are you using it just in con- — or are you saying took the stock as a matter of the Fifth Amendment?
THE COURT: Well, call it what you will. The government acquired the stock without paying anything for it and then pocketed the revenue from it.
From page 70, line 2:
THE COURT: Now, I think there are in fact restrictions in 13(3) about what kind of interest the government can acquire in the company being lended to, but my question is what incentive is there ever for the government to follow the restrictions of the law if the recovery is always going to be zero. It doesn’t matter what 13(3) says. The government can just do whatever it wants and never have to pay anything.
MR. DINTZER: Well, respectfully, Your Honor, again, we disagree with your — the suggestion of interpreting 13(3), but respectfully, Your Honor.
From page 92, line 24:
THE COURT: You know, despite all of the maneuvering and finessing that went on, nevertheless, if you look back at the events of September 16 through 22, approximately, there’s no question in anybody’s mind that there had been a change in ownership of AIG Corporation. The people who were the owners and operators of the company are now out and the government is in there running the show completely, no question about that. So that’s the dilemma I’m having. I’m listening to your arguments, but nevertheless, in that very first week, the government assumed control, and there was no doubt about that.
From page 94, line 18:
THE COURT: Well, I’m just — the premise of my question was that — well, looking at this maybe simplistically, we had new ownership of AIG shortly after September 16. And how can it be that there wasn’t some sort of illegal exaction or taking for that to have happened?