More from the Author

• Case | HBS Case Collection | 2013

  AIG and the American Taxpayers (A)

  Karthik Ramanna and Matthew Shaffer

  Explores the decision faced by AIG's board on whether to join shareholder and ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg's lawsuit against the U.S. government. The suit, argued by super-lawyer David Boies (of Bush v. Gore and California Gay Marriage fame), claims that in September 2008 the U.S. arbitrarily set aside the rights of AIG's shareholders—violating the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation—while preserving shareholder rights in other troubled financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs whose ex-CEO was the then Treasury Secretary. The U.S. government moved to dismiss the case arguing that it has wide discretion in times of crisis, but a federal judge allowed the suit to proceed. The case raises two issues central to understanding capitalism: (1) the importance of and limits to property rights; and (2) the role of the state in choosing between varieties of capitalism, here between oligarchic and entrepreneurial capitalism.

  Keywords: financial institutions; Financial Markets; financial crisis; property rights; Financial Institutions; Financial Markets; Financial Crisis; Property; Insurance Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Ramanna, Karthik, and Matthew Shaffer. "AIG and the American Taxpayers (A)." Harvard Business School Case 113-124, April 2013.

  CiteView Details

  Related

• Supplement | HBS Case Collection | 2013

  AIG and the American Taxpayers (B)

  Karthik Ramanna and Matthew Shaffer

  Explores the decision faced by AIG's board on whether to join shareholder and ex-CEO Maurice Greenberg's lawsuit against the U.S. government. The suit, argued by super-lawyer David Boies (of Bush v. Gore and California Gay Marriage fame), claims that in September 2008 the U.S. arbitrarily set aside the rights of AIG's shareholders—violating the Fifth Amendment by taking private property without just compensation—while preserving shareholder rights in other troubled financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs whose ex-CEO was the then Treasury Secretary. The U.S. government moved to dismiss the case arguing that it has wide discretion in times of crisis, but a federal judge allowed the suit to proceed. The case raises two issues central to understanding capitalism: (1) the importance of and limits to property rights; and (2) the role of the state in choosing between varieties of capitalism, here between oligarchic and entrepreneurial capitalism.

  Keywords: Financial Markets; financial institutions; financial policy; property rights; Financial Institutions; Financial Crisis; Financial Management; Insurance Industry; United States;

  Citation:

  Ramanna, Karthik, and Matthew Shaffer. "AIG and the American Taxpayers (B)." Harvard Business School Supplement 113-125, April 2013.

  CiteView Details

  Related

• Case | HBS Case Collection | 2013

  The Pritzker Architecture Prize: Building Value (A)

  Mukti Khaire and Eleanor Kenyon

  The case provides a history of the architectural profession and the Pritzker Prize and also describes the role of prizes in validating innovations and making them acceptable and valuable in creative industries. By providing their imprimatur, coveted Prizes with good reputations can especially influence the careers of entrepreneurs and new members of creative professions. The case describes the elements that constitute a reputed prize that can change the course of a field. It also asks the question of whether the prize itself may become an objective, rather than innovation, and spurs a discussion about innovation in creative fields. The B case presents the perspective of architects and architecture critics and members of the Pritzker jury and further elucidates the value of such prizes for entrepreneurs and innovators.

  Keywords: architecture; value drivers; innovation; Innovation History; United States;

  Citation:

  Khaire, Mukti, and Eleanor Kenyon. "The Pritzker Architecture Prize: Building Value (A)." Harvard Business School Case 813-124, February 2013.

  CiteView Details

  Related