Talk:American International Group/Archives/2018

Update infobox
I am updating infobox with current dataHiland109 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger Proposal Chartis
Proposed merger of Chartis Page to AIG page to bring all AIG-related content under one roof.Hiland109 (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the limited example of Chartis I would tend to agree that the articles be merged. From what I can see of it the only reason Chartis existed is as a prep to a potential spin off of a stand alone company that was later decided not to occur. I don't think that would merit its own article.  I do feel that some elements of what eventually became AIG do merit their own articles however Chartis doesn't seem to be one of them.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   04:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chartis was a spin-out that didn't happen - it's essentially just a dead brand, not even a different organization. Clarkefreak &#8734; 22:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Checking back here after an invite by Lgkkitkat. IMHO this has been given more then enough time for any and all views to be expressed, if this was my expertise or interest I would be doing an article merge now and available to discuss any opinions on it.  It is my hope that any editors that wish to make a stand for an independent or very detailed Chartis page will present their points so we can go forward with this clear (tho limited) consensus.  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way   00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you...  Market St.⧏  ⧐ Diamond Way Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just merge it. My concern was that there is now a company named Chartis that is active again. Is it AIG's? Something else? I don't know. I am not willing or able to spend my time researching AIG any further. It makes me sick to work for free while unemployed to tend AIG's WP article, so I can't be involved any further. I'm sorry, Lgkkitkat. It isn't your fault; you're doing what you can.--FeralOink (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * FeralOinkI just researched your concern about the new Chartis company and it is not affiliated with AIG. Thank you for all your help and support.  Lgkkitkat (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thank you so much, Lgkkitkat! --FeralOink (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to view the history of the old Chartis page? I can't figure it out. -KaJunl (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Multilingual Translation Accuracy
Greetings, I have been part of a collaboration to get this page translated on the Japanese Wikipedia site. After further examination, it would appear there are discrepancies in the information. While there seems to be much work on the English page, there is very little on the Japanese page. I would like to gather a general consensus on whether or not the community feels the content here is the most up-to-date and reliable to use as the source for the translation. Regards! MsGingerHoneycutt (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, AIG is a topic of interest to me as an example of an historic post-2008 turnaround. In checking the Japanese translation, I see many, many discrepancies between the English version and the Japanese page Japanese Wikipedia site, which is dated at best. I concur with MsGingerHoneycutt. I can only imagine the vast difference between the multiple multilingual AIG Wikipedia pages across the Internet. I request assistance from multilingual contributors to eliminate these discrepancies, one at a time. Working together, I believe we can get accurate and timely information about this company up to speed. Contributors to the American version have done an exemplary job to date. Do any of these contributors know of contributors in other languages that might be interesting in participating? Thank you, Hiland109 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest using the English page as a starting point for translations, since based on the information that you've both provided above, it sounds like the other languages are not being updated regularly. Rather than go through each discrepancy one at a time, it might make sense to periodically replace the Japanese article with the English one that is updated more frequently-- of course, this means that some well-intentioned Japanese edits may be lost in the mix, but simultaneously maintaining the content of many articles in many languages doesn't seem reasonable?  Maybe there's a more formal guide for this somewhere on Wikipedia?  -KaJunl (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating financial data in infobox
First and foremost, I have a paid COI regarding AIG, but the financial data in the infobox is outdated. AIG's annual report came out last month, and along with it the corresponding figures. I have an updated version of the infobox in my sandbox here with the link to the report included. Can someone take a look and update it, or let me know if there are any problems? Thanks! --FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of taking screenshots of the page of AIG's Annual Report relevant to the figures in the infobox. This is the first half of page 66 with the numbers for revenue, operating income, and net income, and this is the second half of page 66 with the numbers for total assets and total equity. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute
The recent edits by Rjensen to the lead and Liquidity crisis and government bailout sections add undue weight to the lead, and then add the same redundant information to the latter section. The haphazard manner in which this content has been added ignores the existing chronological and neutral account of the AIG liquidity crisis and government bailout. Removal of the unnecessary and redundant content re-balances the objectivity of the Wikipedia article.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the 2-sentence addition is the key finding summarizing what the main government investigation concluded AIG did wrong to cause so much disruption. It is a central answer many readers will be seeking. The lede repeats the text, which indeed should have more material on this major issue. Therefore I added more of the final statement of the investigating commission, and cited two independent reliable sources that endorse its conclusions. This information is not included anywhere else. I note that FacultiesIntact states on his userpage that he is paid by AIG to work on this article, and here is where conflict of interest shows it head--he denies any fault by AIG and calls word of the government report  "possible vandalism." Rjensen (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute, not vandalism., please rename this bad-faith section title. For what it's worth, I agree that there's now too much emphasis in the lead on the financial crisis, but not for NPOV reasons. It's just more detail than is ideal for the lead of an encyclopedia article. Lagrange613 15:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If I wasn’t clear earlier, it is not the information itself that I have a problem with, it was the manner in which it was added. Lagrange, you are right in that I should have been better about assuming good faith; however, on an article with such a contentious history, even when I agree with the information being presented, its incongruence with the rest of the article and its chronology triggered my reaction. It seemed to me that the information was presented in such a way to attract attention to itself, in particular the quote being offset rather than in-line. In the spirit of good faith, I’ve renamed the section header. and, if you’re open to collaborating together, please let me know if there are other areas which you think are deficient in context.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the article ignored the major government report on its performance leading to the 2008 bailout. That certainly had to be remedied. The question is why did AIG fail so badly. Rjensen (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that this information has a place in the article, but I think it could be presented more cohesively. Would you like to work together to find an mutually agreeable way to do so?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * FacultiesIntact is paid by AIG to deal with this article and I can't work with their PR machine. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested. I see three editors editing in this section, and so will be removing the third opinion tag. You may try the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. However, the fact that one of the editors is a paid editor should be disclosed at WP:DRN or in the WP:RFC. If the paid editor doesn't disclose their affiliation, the other editors will point to the user page disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC:Should the information be included in both the lead and its relevant section?
Should the content about the FCIC's findings appear in both the lead and bailout sections? FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lede summarizes the article and this is a major result. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Responding to RfC - Reviewing the article, it does seem that this information is significantly relevant to the company's notability. It was not only a major event for the company, but the company became a principle player in a major event of American history as a whole.  I believe it would be remiss not to mention it in the lead.  The lead summarizes the article content.  Given that a significant portion of the article itself is dedicated to the bailout, it would be ridiculous not to mention the bailout in the lead.  And when mentioning the bailout, a summary of the bailout must be presented, which includes the FCIC's findings. Fieari (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on American International Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110204144/http://www.businessweek.com:80/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html#more

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Replacing NY HQ image
Would anyone object to replacing the current image of the New York HQ with this image? The newer one is of a slightly higher resolution and provides a clearer view of the building in question.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the higher resolution image and would have no problem with that being the updated image. ZCash1104 (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you mind making the change yourself? I'm refraining due to my COI. Also, if you've got a minute, could you review and update the infobox as well? I've got a version with the current financial data here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with you updating the image. The image you suggest and provide looks more professional. Gabe1972 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Subsidiaries section is outdated
The subsidiaries currently listed are outdated, and are either no longer owned by nor relevant to AIG. I drafted a new version in my sandbox with an abridged list, using data from their recently filed 10-K. The complete list of subsidiaries begins on pages 358-360 (Exhibit 21), but as the list comprises over 100 entities, I don't think it'd be appropriate to include them all here. The Holdings of American International Group article seemed like it would be a good place for the full list of subsidiaries, but that article became outdated after it was disambiguated from AIG. How can we reconcile the need for current information on the disambiguated page if it doesn't get the same traffic or attention that it would here?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am marking this as partially implemented per the information from below this section, but feel free to reopen your request if anything develops with your company. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Overview and infobox are outdated
In addition to the subsidiaries mentioned above, the employment and financial figures in the overview and infobox are outdated as well. The structure of the company has changed a bit as well, and is reflected and sourced in the same sandbox. Can someone update the numbers and review the text I drafted?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have updated the subsidiary information and I started comments at User talk:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/American International Group and pinged you there regarding the infobox and lead.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on American International Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013085518/http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/fo_china_part_1/Publishers-Note.aspx to http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/fo_china_part_1/Publishers-Note.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/business/17insure.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasDealsNews/idUKTRE51N6DW20090224
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004175417/http://www.hsb.com/cmsfiles/Munich_Re_Press_Rls_HSB_Close41200933752.pdf to http://www.hsb.com/cmsfiles/Munich_Re_Press_Rls_HSB_Close41200933752.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American International Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222181830/http://www.aig.com/about-us/corporategovernance/board-of-directors to http://www.aig.com/about-us/corporategovernance/board-of-directors
 * Added tag to http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2053392/
 * Added tag to http://www.ifawebnews.com/articles/2008/11/26/news/property/doc492c16082e4df440597990.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170222181830/http://www.aig.com/about-us/corporategovernance/board-of-directors to http://www.aig.com/about-us/corporategovernance/board-of-directors

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American International Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161130164456/http://www.aig.com/content/dam/aig/america-canada/us/documents/investor-relations/2015-annual-report.pdf to http://www.aig.com/content/dam/aig/america-canada/us/documents/investor-relations/2015-annual-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Updating template
I know this isn't necessarily the place to ask about it, but template talk pages rarely get viewed. Given my COI, I don't want to update the template directly, but it is rather outdated, and could use some other tweaks as well. My proposed update is here. Could anyone take a look and weigh in?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Subsidiary of the US government?
I think this change to the infobox was .... inaccurate as the government sold off its shares by 2012. I reverted, added a note about the sales to the lead, and have opened this for discussion. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it exactly right. I found this article that corroborates it, as well as indicates that AIG bought back all of the warrants, leaving the U.S. Treasury without "any residual interest in AIG."--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Foundation date
Right now the article claims in both the infobox and the early years section that the company was founded in August, but the article it cites makes no mention of August and only gives the beginning year as 1919. The book Fallen Giant: The Amazing Story of Hank Greenberg and the History of AIG (first page of chapter 2) gives the date of December 19, 1919, as does this Starr Companies profile and this book on CV Starr (page 6). Would someone without a COI mind reviewing this so we can get the correct foundation date on the article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating lead, history, and board of directors
AIG recently restructured their business units, so I went ahead and drafted up the changes to the lead in my sandbox. I also noticed the Corporate Governance section is outdated, as George Miles, Robert Miller, and John Paulson are no longer on the board. Lastly, the recent history section was reading a little too much like a timeline, so I reorganized it so it reads more fluidly. Could someone take a look at my sandbox given my COI?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Took a look per your request and feel that the proposed changes improve the readability of the page while remaining neutral. Provided others don't feel differently I support these changes being implemented.– GAAPnow (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. Do you think it'd be appropriate to make these changes at this point?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I drafted some additional updates to the history section, in both the Liquidity crisis section and Modern era section. The former consists of minor copyedits and the addition of more context regarding the high-profile STOLI case, while the latter regrouped some of the paragraphs for better organization, while also adding information about the previous CEO, Peter Hancock, and the events regarding Carl Icahn's calling for the breakup of the company. Diff here. Does anyone have time to look it over? do you have a minute to spare?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Follow up on sections needing slight Markup fixes
Just to follow up on the sections which were unable to be implemented, please let me know as soon as these fixes are made so that I may place those sections from the draft into the article. FYI - I'm not actively watching the page - so when you're ready to proceed please place a new template into your post at the bottom of the page in order to draw my attention. Thank you      Spintendo       08:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Money damages
I've been looking over the article a lot recently, and this subsection stuck out to me in particular. While the three paragraphs preceding it give greater context to the 2008 bailout, the Money damages subsection is focused on the actions of Greenberg, who had left the company three years prior. I think the way it currently exists improperly conflates Greenberg's actions with that of AIG, who had already rejected his idea. Would it be more appropriate to incorporate this subsection into the Legal issues section of Greenberg's BLP? --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have the time to take a look at this?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm redacting the above request, as I've realized after further examination, the section in question needs a serious amount of clarification. As it's written now, it conflates the case that Greenberg brought against the US government with the case AIG filed against Maiden Lane (the NY Federal Reserve). Not only does the way it's written confuse two cases for a singular one, the chronology of events is wrong as well. Greenberg filed his suit in 2011, and AIG in 2013. I think the confusion initially arose because AIG's declining to join Greenberg's suit happened just days before they filed the suit against Maiden Lane. I drafted up some revisions here. Does anyone have some time to look it over and help make sure it's a clear improvement to the article?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
I mentioned these above, but they seem to be getting little attention. I drafted up the proposed changes in a sandbox, and the diff for these changes can be viewed here.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The foundation date is listed as August 14, 1919 in the early years section as well as the infobox, but the source cited makes no mention of it. Fallen Giant: The Amazing Story of Hank Greenberg and the History of AIG (first page of chapter 2) gives the date of December 19, 1919, as does this Starr Companies profile and this book on CV Starr (page 6).
 * Copyedit the liquidity crisis section for clarity and clean references, as well as give additional context to the STOLI lawsuit in 2011.
 * Update the modern era section to include information about Benmosche's resignation and death, the previous CEO, Peter Hancock, and company activity involving Carl Icahn.

Reply 27-MAR-2018
Question: The added text states: "AIG sued to invalidate the claim altogether, arguing that it was filed fraudulently. The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice by U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker on May 25, 2011." This text indicates that there are potentially two lawsuits here, the initial lawsuit involving JB Carlson and Germaine Tomlinson, and AIG's lawsuit claiming that they were forced to act against a lawsuit which was "filed fraudulently". The text then states that "the case was settled and dismissed." What the text doesn't state is whether or not the suit by AIG was a separate matter in a different court or whether it was involving the first suit. In other words would AIG's suit claiming that the other parties filed fraudulently have used the same court case number as the one involving JB Carlson and Germaine Tomlinson, or would it have made use of a separate case number? This is important because the next sentence in the proposed statement is that "the case was settled and dismissed." Settled and dismissed are for all intents and purposes the same thing. But in close proximity to the statement regarding AIG's counter-lawsuit, it might imply to readers that the dismissal occurred as a result of AIG's intervention alone. Please advise. When ready to proceed, please change the edit request template parameter to read from ans=yes to ans=no.      Spintendo       22:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's actually a great point, and something that I overlooked in researching the case. I found the filing from Judge Barker (see page 16) which helped elucidate the situation. I think the confusion arises from the way the section is currently written: "In October 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that a family sued AIG..." AIG originally sued Carlson et al, and the Tomlinson family didn't know about the case until reading about it in the news, at which point they were allowed to join the case. Revising for clarity, I think it could look like this:
 * As for the question of "settled" vs "dismissed" my impression is that settled communicates that the three parties involved agreed to the terms of the settlement (which are undisclosed) and "dismissed with prejudice" signifies that none of the parties may open another suit regarding the details of this particular case. That said, law isn't my area of expertise, so I'm happy to be corrected there if I'm misinterpreting the terms.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick reply. That explanation does help, so the only part that remains then is the status of the lawsuit where AIG was suing to invalidate the claim altogether, arguing that it was filed fraudulently (let's call this the countersuit). If this was the same court case, then that countersuit would have to be dropped for the settlement to take place. The paragraph as it's stated now doesn't really clarify that. If the settlement came after AIG's countersuit then perhaps the countersuit need not be mentioned? Or if it is mentioned, can it also be mentioned that the countersuit was dropped in order that the settlement could be agreed to? What are your ideas on this?       Spintendo       01:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think part of the confusion is that the Wikipedia article framed it as Tomisue Hilbert's (Germaine Tomlinson's daughter) suit against AIG and JB Carlson, when it was originally AIG's suit against Carlson, filed in 2008. To me, settling inherently implies the dropping of not just the counterclaims, but all the claims, otherwise things would still proceed to trial. If I understand correctly, the order of events was this:


 * 1) 2006: Carlson files the policy
 * 2) 2008: Tomlinson passes
 * 3) 2008: AIG files motions to invalidate the insurance claim
 * 4) 2010: Judge Baker rules on multiple motions, including counterclaims from Carlson, as well as allowing for Tomisue Hilbert (the Tomlinson Defendants), who had otherwise been uninvolved in the case, to join the suit with their own counterclaims against AIG and Carlson. This is what was reported on in the cited WSJ article.
 * 5) 2011: The three parties reached a settlement, the terms of which are confidential. This Indianapolis Business Journal article gives a neat little rundown in a sidebar.
 * The difficulty in communicating this information, I think, lies in its chronological relevance to the article. AIG filing a claim against Carlson in 2008 likely garnered little media attention at the time, given the focus on the controversy over the bailout. In the face of the company's biggest public scandal, it hardly seems relevant, even on this Wikipedia article. I think leaving it where it is in the article and conveying that the news-worthy part of the story is Hilbert's joining the suit gives some breathing room to actually process the information. It's a fascinating case, to be sure, but I don't think it warrants much more attention than it already has in the article. I tweaked the copy above to give a better sense of who filed the suit and when. Do you think that helps clarify everything? My hope was that the inclusion of the IBJ article as a reference would also help potentially confused readers.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 29-MAR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request.      Spintendo       09:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Updated edit request
In the liquidity crisis section: In the Modern era: In the See also section: In the Further reading section: I think the references have been cleaned up, but if you're still getting cite errors, could you point out where they're occurring? I'm happy to take another look.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (paragraph 4) Change "Since September 2008 AIG sold some assets to pay off its government loan" to "AIG began selling some assets to pay off its government loans in September 2008"
 * (paragraph 5) Change "In March 2010, AIG sold its American Life Insurance Co. (ALICO) to MetLife Inc. for $15.5 billion in cash and MetLife stock." to "AIG then sold its American Life Insurance Co. (ALICO) to MetLife Inc. for $15.5 billion in cash and MetLife stock in March 2010."
 * (paragraph 5) Change "AIG in September sold AIG Starr and AIG Edison" to "In September AIG sold AIG Starr and AIG Edison"
 * (paragraph 6) Change "In October 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that a family sued AIG for alleged complicity in a 'stranger-originated life insurance' scheme, whereby AIG managers allegedly allowed people without an insurable interest to take out life insurance policies against others, which some labeled a "death bet." The case involved JB Carlson and Germaine Tomlinson, and was one of many similar lawsuits in the US at the time." to the text drafted above. It should be properly reflected in the sandbox now as well.
 * (paragraph 7) Change "In January 2011, AIG sold its Taiwanese life insurance company, Nan Shan Life, to a consortium of buyers for $2.16 billion." to "AIG sold its Taiwanese life insurance company Nan Shan Life to a consortium of buyers for $2.16 billion in January 2011." and merge with the following line "Due to the Q3 2011 net loss widening, on November 3, 2011, AIG shares plunged 49 percent year to date. The insurer's board approved a share buyback of as much as $1 billion." so it's one paragraph instead of two one-line paragraphs.
 * (paragraph 3) After " In total, the Treasury Department realized a gain of more than $22 billion from the sale of AIG common stock and $0.9 billion from the sale of AIG preferred stock." add "The same month, Robert Benmosche announced that he would be stepping down from his position as President and CEO due to his advancing lung cancer. "
 * (paragraph 4) After "AIG began an advertising campaign on January 1, 2013, called "Thank You America," in which several company employees, including AIG President and CEO Robert Benmosche, talked directly to the camera and offered their thanks for the government assistance." add "Peter Hancock succeeded Benmosche as President and CEO of AIG in September 2014. While Benmosche stayed on in an advisory role, he passed away in February the following year. "
 * (paragraphs 5 and 6) Combine and add bolded content to read "In June 2015, Taiwan’s Nan Shan Life Insurance acquired a stake in AIG’s subsidiary in Taiwan for a fee of $158 million. Later that year, activist investor Carl Icahn called for a breakup of AIG, describing the company as "too big to succeed."  AIG announced plans for an initial public offering of 19.9 percent of United Guaranty Corp., a Greensboro, North Carolina-based provider of mortgage insurance for lenders in January 2016. Later that year, Icahn won a seat on the board of directors and continued to to pressure the company to split up its major divisions. AIG also began a joint venture with Hamilton Insurance Group and Two Sigma Investments to serve as insurance needs for small- to medium-sized enterprises. Industry veteran Brian Duperreault became the chairman of the new entity, and Richard Friesenhahn, the executive vice president of U.S. casualty lines at AIG, became CEO. In August 2016, AIG sold off United Guaranty, its mortgage-guarantee unit, to Arch Capital Group, a Bermuda-based insurer, for $3.4 billion. "
 * Remove "Bernard Connolly - former strategist for AIG" and "Bernard Connolly - former strategist for AIG" as they're only tangentially related to AIG
 * Change "Maurice R. Greenberg and Lawrence A. Cunningham, The AIG Story (2013)" to a proper citation with the ISBN: ""

I noticed an oversight on my part in the above list for the See also section. The line item for "Remove "Bernard Connolly - former strategist for AIG" and "Bernard Connolly - former strategist for AIG" as they're only tangentially related to AIG" should have included "MBIA" rather than Bernard Connolly twice. Revised request below: My apologies for the confusion.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove "Bernard Connolly - former strategist for AIG" and "MBIA" as they're only tangentially related to AIG
 * ✅ No apologies needed. 0.82em 21:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 03-APR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request. 0.82em 23:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 30-APR-2018
Here is the diff from my sandbox outlining the changes from the original. To summarize:
 * Rearrange the content to clarify the chronology of events
 * Title the leading subsection "Money damages" and retitle the following subsection "Maiden Lane case withdrawal"
 * Clarify that AIG's board had a legal and fiduciary duty to their shareholders to consider joining the lawsuit
 * Clarify that the "The specific issue" in the Money damages case brought by Greenberg was not "whether the New York Federal Reserve transferred $18 billion in litigation claims on troubled mortgage debt"; that issue was the subject of the separate Maiden Lane case involving AIG and the NY Fed
 * Fix typo referring to "Pfaelzer" as "Praelzer"
 * Clarify that Pfaelzer was ruling on a case against Bank of America, whose outcome led to the withdrawal of the case against Maiden Lane/the NY Fed
 * Removed the line "After the case was thrown out by the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that federal common law preempted any Delaware fiduciary duties owed to shareholders" as that action preceded AIG's involvement and convolutes the story. The case was appealed again after the affirmation by the Second Circuit, and reached the Federal Circuit, which is where this story actually becomes relevant to the article.

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply 30-APR-2018
Due to the complex nature of this section, the written prose is insufficient in explaining the progression of the lawsuits described there. It appears at the beginning of the text that what is being communicated may be about one case in particular. However, very shortly into the prose, it then becomes evident that a second case is also being discussed here. The evidence for there being a second case are the rulings discussed by two separate judges. It may even be likely that these two judges are from separate levels of the same case (i.e., the initial judge and then the appellate judge). However, the failure of the prose to specifically delineate where one case ends and its appeal begins leads to confusion in this regard. In order to properly examine the edit request proposal, I would ask that the information be presented more clearly by using a tiered outline approach, where major decisions and outcomes may be delineated. This outline would only be used here in the talk page, for our purposes. The final decided upon text would be placed in the article in prose form, just as it exists now. An example of this talk page outline:


 * 1) CASE I (Starr International Co v U.S., Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 2015-5103, 2015-5133) 
 * 2) Case I: INITIAL
 * 3) Reasons why each side and/or one side began their case (January 9, 2013): " In January 2013, AIG's board discussed joining a lawsuit against the United States government because the bailout they received was unfair to their investors. [1] The idea was rejected. AIG was criticized, however, when news stories soon appeared that it was considering joining a lawsuit brought by AIG shareholders and former CEO Maurice R. Greenberg against the New York Federal Reserve Bank for what the plaintiffs considered unfair terms imposed on AIG by the New York Fed." "Hank Greenberg, with lead lawyer David Boies, sued the U.S. Government separately for money damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims in 2011, prompting strong criticism . In January 2013, AIG's board discussed joining this lawsuit as the board was of the opinion that  the bailout they received was unfair to their investors, and they held a legal duty to protect the interests of their shareholders." The AIG board announced on January 9 that the company would not join the lawsuit, and Bob Benmosche told CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo that it would not be “socially acceptable” for AIG to sue the government, continuing that while people may be angry, "a deal’s a deal."
 * 4) Court ruling (June 15, 2015): After hearing thirty-seven days of testimony and requiring appearances by Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulson, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler ruled that the Federal Reserve responses to the subprime crisis had been illegal. The court reasoned the AIG bailout had been an illegal exaction because the Federal Reserve Act did not authorize the New York Fed to nationalize a corporation by owning its stock. However, Judge Wheeler did not award monetary compensation to the plaintiffs ruling that they did not suffer economic damage because "if the government had done nothing, the shareholders would have been left with 100 percent of nothing."
 * 5) Case I: APPEAL (date)
 * 6) Arguments made in appeal : Both parties appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The New York Fed volunteered an amicus brief arguing that “Apart from an erroneous interpretation of a federal statute, the trial court’s opinion is riddled with material, clearly erroneous findings of fact.”
 * 7) Decisions made by appellate judges (May 10, 2017): "The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington said Greenberg’s Starr International Co. had no legal right to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which chose not to sue."
 * 8) CASE II (American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-00951) January 13, 2009
 * 9) Case II: Initial:
 * 10) Reasons why each side and/or one side began their case : '' AIG filed a suit against the New York Federal Reserve (American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-00951) in January 2013, to maintain the right to sue Bank of America and other issuers of bad mortgage debt. The specific issue was whether the New York Federal Reserve transferred $18 billion in litigation claims on troubled mortgage debt through the Maiden Lane Transactions, entities created by the Fed in 2008, and thus prevented AIG from recouping losses from insured banks.
 * 11) Decisions made : (date) On May 7, 2013, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, ruled in a separate case that $7.3 billion of the disputed claims had, in fact, not been assigned. AIG withdrew the case "with prejudice" on May 28, 2013. P f aelzer was overseeing a suit between AIG and Bank of America (BAC-US) concerning possible misrepresentations by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide as to the quality of the mortgage portfolio. Subsequently, AIG withdrew the Maiden Lane case "without prejudice" on May 28, 2013. In signing the order closing the case, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan who also adjudicated the Maiden Lane case, American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-00951 admonished the Fed saying, "On the face of it" some of its actions "perhaps are unattractive and, indeed, wrongful.” After the case was thrown out by the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that federal common law preempted any Delaware fiduciary duties owed to shareholders.


 * Outline legend: Current standing text, proposed replacement text , my suggestions to include (un-italicized) . Also, proposed and standing texts which are identical in both versions need only be placed once in the outline and left un-underlined. Areas of text which I believe should be removed from both versions, owing to NPOV, are in strikeout.

The different aspects of your edit request should be placed in each tier of the outline. It would be enormously helpful if the text as it now stands in this particular section were also placed within this outline (again, just here on the talk page, for our purposes). Having this text placed here alongside your proposed replacement text would enable me to see more clearly which information is proposed to replace which, and so on and so forth. Once I have a clear idea of what occurred, and when, I can more easily make a decision on what changes to make to the article. A lot of this is really just cut and paste work, so it shouldn't be too difficult. The information placed in the outline should only be that which is under discussion here and the text from the article that it is suggested to replace; no other sections from the article need be involved. Please let me know how you feel about this, and if it is do-able. Thank you! 0.70em 20:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that sounds just fine. Let me organize my notes and I'll get back to you with the outline. I know court cases can get pretty convoluted, and the way this section is currently written doesn't do any favors for the reader.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, that would really help. I can fill in some of the easier blanks above and get it started. 0.70em 22:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and filled in the rest of the outline. I also did a little additional research for some more context. In regards to the first case, Starr International Co v U.S., Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 2015-5103, 2015-5133, after AIG declined to join the case, Greenberg won a favorable ruling from Judge Wheeler, but last year, on May 10, he lost an appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington. According to the link I added above, the case is expected to go to the Supreme Court, but I feel that at this point it's only tangentially related to AIG. Regarding the second case, American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-00951, AIG withdrew the suit without prejudice (i.e., maintained the right to reopen the suit if they were so inclined). The withdrawal of the case was contingent on the ruling by Judge Pfaelzer, allowing the case against Bank of America for bad mortgage debt to proceed. I think a great deal of the confusion arises from the current article painting all three of these as one case. I think part of it came from the close timing in the reporting on the Greenberg case and the Maiden Lane case, and further still from the actual link between the ruling from Pfaelzer and the withdrawal of the Maiden Lane case. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help out!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more clear now, how these cases progressed. I think I'm ready to go ahead and implement the proposed changes. Just one last question. The paragraph in the article labeled Money damages is that to be removed/incorporated into these changes? Please advise, and thank you again! 0.70em 03:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The whole Bailout litigation section is to be replaced entirely with the sandbox version. I incorporated the relevant text into it when working on my revisions, and added new references as well. Money damages as I wrote it in my sandbox now exclusively covers Starr International Co v U.S., and Maiden Lane case withdrawal covers AIG v Maiden Lane alongside AIG v Bank of America. Thanks for all your help!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply/draft proposal 3-MAY-2018
Here is my proposal for the information in this section:"Bailout litigation Starr International Co v U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Hank Greenberg, with lead lawyer David Boies, sued the U.S. Government for money damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims in 2011. The AIG board had announced on January 9 that the company would not join the lawsuit. After hearing thirty-seven days of testimony from Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson and others, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler ruled that the Federal Reserve payment to AIG had been an illegal exaction, as the Federal Reserve Act did not authorize the New York Fed to nationalize a corporation by owning its stock. Judge Wheeler did not award compensation to the plaintiffs, ruling that they did not suffer economic damage because 'if the government had done nothing, the shareholders would have been left with 100 percent of nothing.'  Greenberg and the U.S. Government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that Greenberg had no legal right to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which in this case, chose not to sue. American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC AIG filed suit against the New York Federal Reserve in January 2013 in order to maintain the former's right to sue Bank of America and other issuers of bad mortgage debt. The specific issue was whether the New York Federal Reserve transferred $18 billion in litigation claims on troubled mortgage debt through Maiden Lane Transactions, entities created by the Fed in 2008. This transaction, AIG argued, prevented them from recouping losses from insured banks. On May 7, 2013, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, ruled in a separate case that $7.3 billion of the disputed claims had not been assigned. AIG withdrew the case 'with prejudice' on May 28, 2013. Pfaelzer was overseeing a suit between AIG and Bank of America (BAC-US) concerning possible misrepresentations by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide as to the quality of the mortgage portfolio. Subsequently, AIG withdrew the Maiden Lane case 'without prejudice' on May 28, 2013. After the case was thrown out by the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that federal common law preempted any Delaware fiduciary duties owed to shareholders." 0.725em 13:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're close! For the American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC section, the end should be modified. The line "After the case was thrown out by the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that federal common law preempted any Delaware fiduciary duties owed to shareholders." refers to the Starr v US case. That said, it precedes the point at which Judge Wheeler heard the case both logically and chronologically, but I don't think it's all that relevant here anyway, especially since AIG's board had already decided not to join the suit. The dismissal described occurred in 2014, and Wheeler's ruling came in 2015. Additionally, AIG never withdrew the case "with prejudice." As far as I can tell that was an error in interpreting this article. I made some slight changes to your new text, bolded below:

"Bailout litigation Starr International Co v U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Hank Greenberg, with lead lawyer David Boies, independently sued the U.S. Government for money damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims in 2011. The AIG board had announced on January 9 that the company would not join the lawsuit. After hearing thirty-seven days of testimony from Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson and others, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler ruled that the Federal Reserve payment to AIG had been an illegal exaction, as the Federal Reserve Act did not authorize the New York Fed to nationalize a corporation by owning its stock. Judge Wheeler did not award compensation to the plaintiffs, ruling that they did not suffer economic damage because 'if the government had done nothing, the shareholders would have been left with 100 percent of nothing.'  Greenberg and the U.S. Government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that Greenberg had no legal right to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which in this case, chose not to sue. American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC AIG filed suit against the New York Federal Reserve in January 2013 in order to maintain the former's right to sue Bank of America and other issuers of bad mortgage debt. The specific issue was whether the New York Federal Reserve transferred $18 billion in litigation claims on troubled mortgage debt through Maiden Lane Transactions, entities created by the Fed in 2008. This transaction, AIG argued, prevented them from recouping losses from insured banks. On May 7, 2013, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, ruled in a separate case between AIG and Bank of America (BAC-US) concerning possible misrepresentations by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide as to the quality of the mortgage portfolio that $7.3 billion of the disputed claims had not been assigned. AIG withdrew the case 'with prejudice' on May 28, 2013. Subsequently, AIG withdrew the Maiden Lane case 'without prejudice' on May 28, 2013, as their suit against Bank of America was allowed to proceed. After the case was thrown out by the District Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, holding that federal common law preempted any Delaware fiduciary duties owed to shareholders. In signing the order closing the Maiden Lane case, adjudicating U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan admonished the Fed saying, 'On the face of it' some of its actions 'perhaps are unattractive and, indeed, wrongful.” "

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision
Thank you for your input. Here is my latest draft. I think it's important that the three cases are described under separate headings, even though the outcome of one case relates to the events in another. Also, I think its important that Judge Kaplan's comments are left out, seeing as how they were not made in a ruling deciding the case, but rather, were given in a procedural decision closing the case. In the quote, Kaplan concedes that the Fed's actions were perhaps unattractive and indeed wrongful but without the case going to its logical conclusion, as AIG withdrew, we're not left with much "actual" closure. What are your thoughts on this? Also, what was the outcome of AIG v. BofA (the third heading shown below)? Please let me know how everything looks. Thank you!

Bailout litigation Hank Greenberg, with lead lawyer David Boies, independently sued the U.S. Government for money damages in the United States Court of Federal Claims in 2011. The AIG board had announced on January 9 that the company would not join the lawsuit. After hearing thirty-seven days of testimony from Ben Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson and others, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler ruled that the Federal Reserve payment to AIG had been an illegal exaction, as the Federal Reserve Act did not authorize the New York Fed to nationalize a corporation by owning its stock. Judge Wheeler did not award compensation to the plaintiffs, ruling that they did not suffer economic damage because "if the government had done nothing, the shareholders would have been left with 100 percent of nothing."
 * Starr International Co v U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Greenberg and the U.S. Government appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that Greenberg had no legal right to challenge the bailout because that right belonged to AIG, which in this case, chose not to sue.

AIG filed suit against the New York Federal Reserve in January 2013 in order to maintain the former's right to sue Bank of America and other issuers of bad mortgage debt. The specific issue was whether the New York Federal Reserve transferred $18 billion in litigation claims on troubled mortgage debt through Maiden Lane Transactions, entities created by the Fed in 2008. This transaction, AIG argued, prevented them from recouping losses from insured banks. Owing to events which allowed AIG to proceed in another related case (see below), AIG withdrew the Maiden Lane case "without prejudice" on May 28, 2013.
 * American International Group Inc. et al. v. Maiden Lane II LLC

On May 7, 2013, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, ruled in a case between AIG and Bank of America concerning possible misrepresentations by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide as to the quality of the mortgage portfolio, that $7.3 billion of the disputed claims had not been assigned.
 * AIG v. Bank of America

0.725em 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think these are solid changes, and I agree with your point about Judge Kaplan's statement. I added the resolution of the BoA case to your text, below in bold:

On May 7, 2013, Los Angeles U.S. District Judge, Mariana Pfaelzer, ruled in a case between AIG and Bank of America concerning possible misrepresentations by Merrill Lynch and Countrywide as to the quality of the mortgage portfolio, that $7.3 billion of the disputed claims had not been assigned. '''The two parties settled in July 2014, with Bank of America paying out $650 million to AIG, who in turn dismissed their litigation. '''
 * AIG v. Bank of America

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply 3-MAY-2018
✅ Thank you very much for your help on this. 0.725em 02:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 20-JUN-2018
There's a few minor copyedits to fix some grammar issues.
 * In American International Group
 * Current text: "AIG also began a joint venture with Hamilton Insurance Group and Two Sigma Investments to serve as insurance needs for small- to medium-sized enterprises."
 * Proposed text: "AIG also began a joint venture with Hamilton Insurance Group and Two Sigma Investments to serve the insurance needs of small- to medium-sized enterprises."


 * In American International Group
 * Current text: "In Australia and China, AIG is identified as a large financial institution and provider financial services including credit security mechanisms."
 * Proposed text: "In Australia and China, AIG is identified as a large financial institution and provider of financial services including credit security mechanisms."

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 26-JUL-2018
The last sentence in the second paragraph of the lead section is outdated. Currently it reads "On December 31, 2016 AIG had $76.3 billion in shareholder equity." The latest figure, as of December 31, 2017, is $65.2 billion in shareholder equity, per item 6, page 35 of the most recent 10-K filing.

My proposed text: "On December 31, 2017 AIG had $65.2 billion in shareholder equity."

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

 spintendo   00:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)