That's the nature of contracts and life in general. Read the details, pick and choose, etc. Some creditors get paid, others negotiate reduced rates, some lose completely. Picking and choosing makes sense, whereas attempts to cast all contracts as "the same" (as to violability) does not make sense.
-- It was legal contract. AIG had no problem breaking it did they? --
We don't know that they did break it. They settled with the plaintiff for an undisclosed amount, which may simply be an indication that it was cheaper to pay (max 1.3 million) than to duke it out in a federal district court. The contract may have had termination clauses in it, where the employee's right to a payout is contingent on being employed in the unit that gets the payout at the time the payout is made.
They terminated the guy so yes we do know they broke the contract don’t we? He sued in court and received a settlement...obviously, he would not have to sue if they honored his contract.
I want to know why no one is really talking about the return on investment to the taxpayers that the 165 million in retention payments got us. Everyone seems to forget that for 165 million, 1.1 trillion of toxic assets were culled by these people that were promised the retention payments if they did just what they did.
The contracted for a job, performed as expected, and were totally hosed in my opinion.
Atlas will shrug soon enough, then there won’t be anything to take...