The lead editorial in today's Wall $treet Journal
makes the point that compared to any alleged mismanagement by former AIG exec Hank Greenberg, Eliot Spitzer has done far more damage to AIG shareholder value.
This begs the question: Why don't AIG shareholders sue Eliot Spitzer?
Spitzer has in public said Mr. Greenberg committed "fraud" that was "illegal" and caused AIG's share price to plummet!
The damage to shareholder value caused by Spitzer's investigation (and PR campaign) was predictable. More importantly, if what the Journal's portrayal* of the "white paper" released by Greenberg's lawyers (lead by David Boies) is accurate, then Spitzer was reckless in making accusations against the former AIG executive.
Furthermore the Journal writes "it (the "white paper") makes a compelling case that AIG's new management took financial decisions detrimental to shareholders - and for no other purpose then to shift blame to past management and kowtow to Mr. Spitzer."If the facts are correct* then it seems Spitzer knowingly damaged the AIG share price with false information in a reckless manner.
If true, Spitzer's culpability here is far clearer then many the cases the AG has tried in the media and eventually settled. So Mr. Boise, if you read this the answer is simple: COUNTER-SUE!
(And given the thousands of AIG shareholders, it should be no problem getting the lawsuit classified as class action.)
*Of course I would like to see for myself and have personally put in a request into Mr. Greenberg's attorneys.