[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
you’ve never heard of clawback.
When you are in CH 11 the court can pull back
the collateral. The hedge assumed AIG kept running, not in bankruptcy[/quote]

Pat: Actually, I’m quite familiar with clawback and referenced it in an earlier post on this very thread. Its doubtful you read that post, and its doubtful you read any of my other posts describing Goldman’s position in re AIG.

BK didn’t have dick to do with any of this, especially given the fact that Goldman was IN POSSESSION of AIG’s cash and securities as collateral on the owed monies and whatever difference that existed was covered by CDS from other third parties.

They would have been paid EITHER WAY.

This tiresome discussion on BK is utterly pointless. There would have been no clawback, in that Goldman ALREADY HELD THE FUNDS.

I don’t know if you are being intentionally obtuse or you simply don’t understand how collateral works in the securities industry. They did NOT have have counterparty risk, so what is your point?[/quote]

i saw that post, after i had posted, but, while I will grant you do appear to understand the securities trade, i’d venture you don’t understand the bankruptcy trade.

Yes, Goldman was holding collateral, one could even argue that made Goldman a “Secured” creditor.
However even secured creditors still need to go to
court.

a judge could easily determine that it wouldn’t be in the best interests of AIG to allow Goldman to seize that collateral.

look at all those people sitting in default, filing bankruptcy to delay foreclosure.

if a judge determined that something in the AIG contracts was “Unconscionable, inactionable or
a policy violation” they could easily toss the case.

Goldman was defecating in their loafers and desperate until Paulsen saved their lunch.

if they weren’t they would never have joined TARP.