PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Dodd's Wife a Former Director of an AIG Controlled Company


petegz28
03-24-2009, 01:26 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_director_o.html


No conflict of interest whatsoever on the Senators part..........yeah right!

This fucking scumbag actually wanted to be President? And for him to try and lay the blame for his amendment on Obama is just horseshit.

No wonder Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) went wobbly last week when asked about his February amendment ratifying hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at insurance giant AIG. Dodd has been one of the company's favorite recipients of campaign contributions. But it turns out that Senator Dodd's wife has also benefited from past connections to AIG as well.

From 2001-2004, Jackie Clegg Dodd served as an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. IPC, which provides property casualty catastrophe insurance coverage, was formed in 1993 and currently has a market cap of $1.4 billion and trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol IPCR. In 2001, in addition to a public offering of 15 million shares of stock that raised $380 million, IPC raised more than $109 million through a simultaneous private placement sale of 5.6 million shares of stock to AIG - giving AIG a 20% stake in IPC. (AIG sold its 13.397 million shares in IPC in August, 2006.)

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 01:41 PM
If I was in his state I would be working on getting him recalled.

orange
03-24-2009, 01:53 PM
Clegg was compensated for her duties to the company, which was managed by a subsidiary of AIG. In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each Directors' and committee meeting she attended.

Clegg was a diligent director. In 2003, the proxy statement report, she attended more than 75% of board and committee meetings.

During the year ended December 31, 2003, there were four meetings of your Board of Directors (including regularly scheduled and special meetings). All incumbent directors and Ms. Clegg, but excluding Mr. Hammond, attended at least 75% of the aggregate of such meetings and of the meetings held by all committees of your Board of Directors of which they were a member.


She pulled down a whopping $15-$16,000 dollars for that. Yeah, she's a regular Johni Dillinger. ROFL

Dallas Chief
03-24-2009, 02:44 PM
She pulled down a whopping $15-$16,000 dollars for that. Yeah, she's a regular Johni Dillinger. ROFL

Well if you want to get technical about it she actally earned $60k-62k for that- if she served four years on the board. Not to mention any stock options she may have had. I'm not saying there were any in this case, but there usually is some sort of stock offer for directorships.

Garcia Bronco
03-24-2009, 02:55 PM
Well if you want to get technical about it she actally earned $60k-62k for that- if she served four years on the board. Not to mention any stock options she may have had. I'm not saying there were any in this case, but there usually is some sort of stock offer for directorships.

Plus she's in a postion to know inside information about the company she can feed to her husband.

Jenson71
03-24-2009, 02:56 PM
This makes so much sense considering Democrats are pure bastard socialists!

petegz28
03-24-2009, 04:17 PM
Clegg was compensated for her duties to the company, which was managed by a subsidiary of AIG. In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each Directors' and committee meeting she attended.

Clegg was a diligent director. In 2003, the proxy statement report, she attended more than 75% of board and committee meetings.

During the year ended December 31, 2003, there were four meetings of your Board of Directors (including regularly scheduled and special meetings). All incumbent directors and Ms. Clegg, but excluding Mr. Hammond, attended at least 75% of the aggregate of such meetings and of the meetings held by all committees of your Board of Directors of which they were a member.



She pulled down a whopping $15-$16,000 dollars for that. Yeah, she's a regular Johni Dillinger. ROFL

Still a glaring conflict of interest. You think she didn't have "friends" at AIG? Dodd has no business writing an amendment that insulates their bonuses and as far as I am concerned has no business on anything the congress does related to AIG.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2009, 04:26 PM
This makes so much sense considering Democrats are pure bastard socialists!

You're coming around nicely, young man! :thumb:

I wouldn't say they're bastards though.

bango
03-24-2009, 04:40 PM
You're coming around nicely, young man! :thumb:

I wouldn't say they're bastards though.

Then what derogatory term would you use?

RINGLEADER
03-24-2009, 08:27 PM
Dodd is an idiot.

BucEyedPea
03-24-2009, 08:42 PM
Then what derogatory term would you use?

I don't consider "socialist" to be a derogatory term. I just don't like its ideas. I don't think it's derogatory to say someone is a conservative or a libertarian either. Socialist is just an accurate term for a set of ideas, just like capitalist, free-marketer or mercantilist. I can't help what it is. It just is what it is. And it's accurate.

I have socialist friends that I respect as people because they're still good people. I disagree with those ideas though...and feel they shouldn't have a big place in America as it was founded on opposite ideas.

I notice those who think it's a bad word are normally the socialists, here though. Go figure.

banyon
03-25-2009, 08:44 AM
He should get the Lieberman treatment from here on out. Hopefully it will work and he'll be ousted, since the right doesn't like him either at this point.

Mr. Flopnuts
03-25-2009, 08:59 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/dodds_wife_a_former_director_o.html


No conflict of interest whatsoever on the Senators part..........yeah right!

This fucking scumbag actually wanted to be President? And for him to try and lay the blame for his amendment on Obama is just horseshit.

You know what I like about you Pete? You'll bash everyone equally. We have Democrats, we have Republicans, and we have Patriots. You sir, are a patriot.

Sully
03-25-2009, 09:03 AM
You know what I like about you Pete? You'll bash everyone equally. We have Democrats, we have Republicans, and we have Patriots. You sir, are a patriot.

Also the reason I like Pete.
I disagree with him about 50% of the time, but I don't ever question whether he's toeing a party line.

petegz28
03-25-2009, 09:14 AM
You know what I like about you Pete? You'll bash everyone equally. We have Democrats, we have Republicans, and we have Patriots. You sir, are a patriot.

Why thank you, thank you! :thumb:

jAZ
03-25-2009, 09:28 AM
2004? *gasp*!

petegz28
03-25-2009, 09:35 AM
2004? *gasp*!

Why do I have the notion that if this were a Republican you would be screaming bloddy murder? :hmmm:

KC native
03-25-2009, 09:37 AM
Still a glaring conflict of interest. You think she didn't have "friends" at AIG? Dodd has no business writing an amendment that insulates their bonuses and as far as I am concerned has no business on anything the congress does related to AIG.

I wouldn't say glaring but I wouldn't say nonexistent. From the description it appears that his wife is everything a director should be (which is rare these days). She was there from 2000-2004 and worked on the board of one of their Prop and Casual Subsidiaries which is not what got AIG into trouble. P&C is profitable provided the company knows what it's doing and from the description it appears that this company is profitable and that the AIG investment was capital raising.

It's funny that AIG bought right at 20% because it means they probably used the equity method of accounting for the purchase which makes the parent company's financial statements look better because they only have to recognize their share of the income (dividends go to reducing the investment account). That's important because if AIG exerts significant control (as opposed to 20% which is considered influence not control) then they have to consolidate the business in their financial statements which makes them not look as good. It would be interesting to see how AIG accounted for it (I'm not digging through financial statements for the last 8 years to find out though).

RINGLEADER
03-25-2009, 09:38 AM
2004? *gasp*!

It's moderately humorous to see how different the perspective of those on the left becomes when the accusations of wrong-doing are leveled at the types of people they support.

Dodd is an idiot.

Dick Bull
03-25-2009, 09:42 AM
Why thank you, thank you! :thumb:

Don't go after my guys or I'll sick Bernard pollard on you. We all know what he does to patriots.

petegz28
03-25-2009, 09:45 AM
Don't go after my guys or I'll sick Bernard pollard on you. We all know what he does to patriots.

ROFL

I hardly think I have been crowned the next Pawtucket Pat. :D