U.S. Government Prepares Defense in AIG Trial

The video discusses a legal case involving AIG shareholders, represented by David Boies, who argue that the government's bailout terms were excessively harsh and amounted to an illegal taking of property. The government defends its actions, citing legal authority and the need to prevent moral hazard. The case is being heard by a single federal judge, with both sides presenting their arguments and evidence.

What is the main argument presented by David Boies on behalf of AIG shareholders?

• The terms of the bailout were excessively harsh and illegal.

• The government should not have intervened at all.

• AIG should have been allowed to fail.

• The bailout terms were fair and justified.

What legal issue does David Boies raise regarding the Federal Reserve's actions?

• Whether the Federal Reserve could legally take an equity stake in AIG.

• Whether the Federal Reserve had the authority to dissolve AIG.

• Whether the Federal Reserve should have bailed out other companies.

• Whether the Federal Reserve could provide loans at any interest rate.

How did the terms of AIG's bailout compare to those of Wall Street banks?

• AIG's terms were identical to those of Wall Street banks.

• AIG's terms were more lenient.

• AIG's terms were harsher, with higher interest rates.

• AIG's terms were not disclosed.

What is the government's main argument in defense of the bailout terms?

• The terms were designed to prevent moral hazard.

• The terms were set by AIG itself.

• The terms were meant to punish AIG.

• The terms were irrelevant to the bailout.

Why does the government believe shareholders should be grateful for the bailout?

• It gave them control over the company.

• It increased their dividends.

• It prevented them from losing everything.

• It allowed them to gain more shares.