Ahmed-Murray-v-Geithner-opinion10-7-11l

Ahmed-Murray-v-Geithner-opinion10-7-11l - Case...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1 Defendants filed two nearly identical motions for summary judgment—the difference being that the latter [dkt 67] is redacted to comply with a protective order. In deciding Defendants’ motion, the Court will consider the un-redacted papers filed in connection therewith. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KEVIN J. MURRAY, Plaintiff, Civil No. 08-15147 v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER and BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, Defendants. ________________________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse, in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on January 14, 2011 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [dkt 57], Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt 66/67], 1 and Plaintiff’s motion to strike [dkt 79]. The parties have fully briefed the motions. The Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motions be resolved on the briefs submitted. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM Document 92 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 27
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2 GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED. II. BACKGROUND The basic facts surrounding the government’s assistance to American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”) are a matter of public record. In the fall of 2008, what the parties describe as a large- scale economic crises erupted, purportedly threatening the liquidity and stability of financial institutions both domestically and abroad. At that time, AIG was one of the world’s largest and most complex financial institutions, prompting officials from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Board of Governors”), in consultation with the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury Department”), to conclude that AIG’s failure would be “catastrophic” for the United States and the world economy. On September 16, 2008, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”), with authorization from the Board of Governors, agreed to create a credit facility that enabled AIG to draw up to $85 billion for general corporate purposes, including as a liquidity source, pursuant to the “unusual and exigent circumstances clause” of Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act (“FRA”), 12 U.S.C. § 343—purportedly the only mechanism then available for providing government financial assistance to institutions such as AIG. In return for the credit facility, AIG signed a trust agreement whereby it agreed to pay interest and fees to the FRBNY and to issue Series
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/12/2012 for the course LAW 621 taught by Professor Arshada.ahmed during the Fall '11 term at UC Hastings.

Page1 / 27

Ahmed-Murray-v-Geithner-opinion10-7-11l - Case...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online