Excerpts from the depositions - Wall Street Journal

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 254-1 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:16591 Deposition Testimony of Christopher J. Swift March 21, 2013 Christopher Swift was the lead businessperson acting for AIG on Maiden Lane II. • “A. In the fall of 2008, I was the CFO of the Life and Retirement Services Business Unit.” 10:3–5. • “Q. You were involved with the Maiden Lane II transaction, correct? A. Yes. Q. Could you describe for me your role in connection with that transaction? A. I was, I would say, the principal business person quarterback to find the solution. Q. A solution to the securities lending program? A. Yes. The mission was to wind it down.” 35:14–25. • “Q. So, you were involved in negotiations over Maiden Lane II with the Fed, correct? A. Correct.” 42:4–7. • “Q. So, you said that―in response to one of Mr. Fry’s questions, that you were the principal business person, the quarterback to find a solution to securities lending. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Were you also the principal business person, the quarterback, in negotiating the Maiden Lane II transaction? A. Yes.” 74:12–21. • “Q. And from your perspective as the chief negotiator for AIG, who were the primary negotiators on the Fed side of the table? A. I would say I interacted with two on a principal basis: Jim Mahoney on a daily basis, and Steve Manzari on a two-, threetimes-a-week basis during this time. So, those would be the two principal ones.” 75:7–15. Swift testified that he had no discussions with anyone about transferring AIG’s fraud claims. • “Q. During that time period, did you ever discuss with anyone the question whether or not AIG would be transferring litigation claims to Maiden Lane II? A. No, I did not discuss it with anyone. Q. You didn’t discuss it with anyone at AIG? A. True. Q. You didn’t discuss it with anyone from the Fed? A. True. Q. You didn’t discuss it with any lawyers for the Fed? A. Correct. Q. You didn’t discuss it with any lawyers for AIG? A. Correct.” 58:6–23. • “Q. During the time period from when you first heard of what became the Maiden Lane II solution, until the time that the Asset Purchase Agreement was signed, did you have any written communications with anyone concerning the question whether AIG would be transferring litigation claims to Maiden Lane II? A. I don’t―I don’t recall having written communication dealing with claims in litigation at all. Q. And would your answer to that question be the same if I referred to transferring litigation claims to the Federal Reserve? A. Yes.” 59:4–19. • “Q. And with respect to discussions, is it correct that you did not have any discussions with anyone during that period concerning the question whether AIG would be transferring litigation claims to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? A. Correct. I don’t recall talking about claims in litigation and―at all with the Fed.” 59:20–60:4. • “Q. What was the asset that comprised the bulk sale, from your perspective as the lead negotiator for AIG? A. $40 billion of par value of RMBS securities. Q. Did you believe that that asset included fraud claims? A. No. As we said, we’ve talked about a EXHIBIT 1 1
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 254-1 Filed 03/28/13 Page 3 of 35 Page ID #:16592 lot of things, we negotiated a lot of things; we did not negotiate a transfer price of terms and conditions for transferring fraud claims.” 76:25–77:12. • “Q. Now, I want to take you back to your interactions with Mr. Manzari and Mr. Mahoney. You said you spoke with them. [Y]ou spoke with Mr. Mahoney on almost a daily basis during the negotiations of the ML II transaction, correct? A. Yes. Q. And with Mr. Manzari less frequently than that, but frequently? A. At least a couple of times a week. Q. [] Did Mr. Mahoney ever tell you that the Fed or Maiden Lane II wanted to acquire AIG’s fraud claims? A. No.” 81:13–82:3. • “Q. Now, did Mr. Mahoney ever tell you―and I’m going to quote from him directly―that ‘the FRBNY and ML II intended to receive all transferrable or assignable benefits associated with the securities and related instruments, including litigation claims associated with those securities or their acquisition by AIG?’ A. I never talked to him about litigation claims during this process. Q. And did he ever tell you he wanted to have an assignment, or the Fed wanted to have an assignment, of those tort claims―of those fraud claims? A. No. We never talked about claims, you know, of any types. Q. . . . [D]id he ever even mention the word ‘fraud claims’? A. No, he did not. Q. Did he ever say anything that suggested to you that the Fed wanted to acquire, or ML II wanted to acquire fraud claims? A. No, he did not. Q. Did he ever say anything that suggested to you the Fed needed to acquire all litigation claims to protect the Fed from downside risk? A. No. The downside risk was proved with the collateral performance in ML II. Q. And when you’re talking about ‘collateral performance’, are you speaking about the residential mortgage-backed securities? A. Yes.” 82:21–84:9. • “Q. Mr. Manzari, did he ever tell you that the Fed or ML II wanted to acquire fraud claims? A. No. Q. Did he ever mention fraud claims? A. No. Q. Did he ever say anything to suggest that the Fed or ML II wanted AIG’s fraud claims? A. No.” 84:10– 19. • “Q. Did anyone at the Fed say or suggest that the Fed or ML II wanted to acquire AIG’s fraud claims? A. No. Q. Did anyone representing the Fed, including its attorneys, say or suggest that the Fed or ML II wanted to acquire AIG’s fraud claims? A. No.” 84:20– 85:4. • “Q. Did anyone at AIG or representing AIG suggest, say anything to suggest that the Fed wanted to acquire AIG’s fraud claims? [Objection] Q. Were you told that by anyone at AIG? A. No.” 85:5–12. • “Q. During the negotiations of the ML II transaction, were you aware of any document suggesting an intent by the Fed or ML II to acquire AIG’s fraud claims? A. No.” 85:13– 17. • “Q. If the fraud claims, the issue of assignment of fraud claims had been raised, is that something you would have expected to be brought to your attention? A. Yeah. I mean, we talked about, and presented to the Board, you know, what we thought the deal was; we presented to regulators, you know, what the deal was. And if it was a term and condition, I would have known about it.” 85:18–86:3. EXHIBIT 1 2
Page 1: Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document
Page 5 and 6: Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document
Page 35: Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document

Excerpts from the depositions - Wall Street Journal

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?