No - it does not have to wait until the exercise The warrants are a coupon to the preferred so it already is an equityholder, hence the press release which said "UST IS OUR MAJORITY SHAREHOLDER" Uh, FASB doesn't have the last word. In fact it has no say in the matter - this is an issue of state law so it's up to Delaware to decide, and they've decided. Shareholders, including preferred, are owed fiduciary duties while the only duties owed to bondholders are contractual. Dude I do this for a living - trust me I know this. For the time being, you're wrong. See above - bondholders and preferred shareholders are not legally equivalent. I'm repeating myself as well - those are major voting rights over which it exercises veto power (which I guess you now acknowledge, on your initial reading you failed to detect this provision - i take it by your abandonment and retreat ont his argument that you acknowledge your epic failure ) Yeah actually it does have board power. Read it again. And here's a newsflash - 45 billion to save a failing company makes you the de facto owner. You've acknowledged this earlier, and it has been validated by rocketsjudoka seal of approval, so I don't need to whip you with it anymore. LOL - that is the way all these agreements are drawn up silly. Even common shares have "specifically not voting rights" except for those outlined in the documents - that's a legal way of putting in a limiting clause. Sorry liar, you can't erase what you posted. Here is a direct quote frome post #85, 02-05-2009, 01:42 PM: Yes, please give me a full list, because you are embarrassing yourself greatly. The government's supermajority voting rights give it veto power over the items listed in red...read your own quote No it's not, go back and read Major's posts earlier in the thread. Unless you can prove 66.7% > 100% then you are proven b****slapped again. How? SHow me the clause. Thanks in advance Hmmm no they can call a special shareholder meeting - that doesn't take months it takes weeks or less. Read your DGCL bro. Or wait, figure out what DGCL is, then read it. "personal piggy bank" - lol please tell me what you mean by this. Anyway I repeat: Please tell me what cause of action would be brought. Thanks in advance. POST b****SLAP COUNT: 147 THREAD TOTAL b****SLAP COUNT 3,422
I did mean companies that are not getting government funds. I do see your public trading issue, I am not sure how to legislate what private companies that trade publicly pay their top dogs. Shouldn't that be a shareholder decision? Maybe up the accountabilty to the share holders? It would seem that the old way of shareholder voting has sort of gone the way of the dodo because of all the dilution, getting a large block of shareholders to move in one direction is not a realistic option. Rather than legislate maximum wages, I would like to see a way to empower shareholders to be a legitimate part of the process.... You think I should make a youtube sam? DD
wakkoman, consider yourself vanquished. I agree it should be, but currently it's not, it's all up to the board. Most boards tend to block and lobby against even advisory votes on executive pay - it's pretty disgusting. Institutional investors like CalPERS have been lobbying heavily for this, hopefully the movement will finally get some legs after the current insanity.
Um no moron, it is not. The warrants would still have to be REDEEMED. And warrants are NOT equity. There is a reason warrants are often detachable and sold separately, because it is NOT equity. If it is equity, aka stock, it CAN'T be detachable at all. It would BE the stock. Go ahead and spin how stocks can detach from itself. I didn't say FASB have the last word. Their word is just one of many that says preferreds are NOT creditors. Where in the Delaware code did it say preferred = creditors? In other words, in direct contradiction to your claims above, you agree with me. Epic failure? Look in the mirror lately? Section 7(a): Translation: no voting rights except... Section 7(c), "Particular Matters." "Particular Matters" defined immediately following in Sections 7(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) as: In other words, NO VOTING RIGHTS except for the issues listed above. Where is the veto power other than share dilution clause? I must have missed it. Where is the board power? In case this isn't getting through your thick skull, let me know if you need a dictionary. It would also help the next you google something, to actually read it in advance. Backlash, backlash. Your rear end is turning a bright shade of red and your nose grew by a couple of feet. HA HA HA, that's your answer? Um, actually no, common shares have quite a few bit more rights than those "drawn" above. This is my direct quote, from quote, from post #76, 02-04-2009, 08:39 PM: So I'm trying to figure out whether you think 76 > 85 or just can't count. Now see, unlike you, I actually keep track of my arguments. And my specific post was the government has supermajority with AIG, IF IT EXERCISES, which it hasn't. And it DOESN'T even have a simple majority in the case of any other companies, making it a non-issue even. And which one would that be? Since the government hasn't exercised, your argument comes down to 0% > 66.7%. I haven't felt the sting of the slap, but you certainly bent over backwards again. Show you a clause on the right to redeem preferred shares? It's um, kinda in the Citigroup bylaws. You know, the one this SPA decided to follow? They can call a special shareholder meeting that the board doesn't have to act upon immediately, kinda for, you know, good reasons. Well for starters, it violated the voting rights on important issues of some 8.2 billion common shareholders. No, I don't see any legitimate actions can be brought forward at all. ANAL REAMING RECEIVED THIS THREAD: 10 ANAL REAMING HISTORY: Serving your town since April 2003.
OK - MFW contends that the UST is not the majority owner of AIG. Let's go to AIG's press release dated September 16, 2008: http://ir.aigcorporate.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=76115&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1197918&highlight= MFW is so b****slapped it is not worth going over the rest of his previous mistakes- as he did not address any of his ownages in any event, and his discussion of DGCL is so bad it hurts (as he does not know what this is, it is understandable). Plus, this new greater ownage must be addressed. The question posed to MFW is now: how is the UST NOT the majority owner of AIG, in the face of the above evidence. Please, please. I hope this MFW character responds. I would be interested to hear his thoughts. However I would like to hear them minus the disgusting homophobia. I have many gay friends, his obsession with perjorative male-on-male ass-reaming is reprehensible. He must not be very tolerant of other people. It is sad that he is so intolerant. I would hope this would be taken itno consideration if he ever woudl apply for citizenship in this great country of ours.
That sounds like a pretty good idea but one that I bet will be harder to pass than restricting the executive salaries of companies that take TARP money. There is no way Congressional Republicans will stand for raising taxes and its not likely that many Democrats or Obama will be interested in raising taxes during a recession.
Let me ask you a straightforward and simple question: If the government decided too could it limit executive compensation at companies taking bailout money? I'm not asking whether it will be very difficult for them or not or whether it is a good idea. Just simply if it could be done. I'm not backing Sam because I'm biased to his point of view on this matter and find it kind of annoying that he is trumpetting my statement as some sort of seal of approval.
You underestimate thyself. The sish-eal of approval is much coveted and once won, will not be relenquished.
I agree, I have served on several boards, and it was always strange when we were discussing our own salaries.....as a part of the compensation committee, I always recused myself when my salary came up, as it was not proper for me to be involved.... Now, if I did not like the offer, I would still be free to negotiate, but that is another matter all together..... DD
