Excerpts from the depositions - Wall Street Journal
Excerpts from the depositions - Wall Street Journal
Excerpts from the depositions - Wall Street Journal
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 2:11-cv-10549-MRP-MAN Document 254-1 Filed 03/28/13 Page 29 of 35 Page ID<br />
#:16618<br />
recoveries with respect to <strong>the</strong> $18 billion in losses that AIG was going to<br />
ultimately be realizing? [Objection] A. That’s correct. There is no reference on<br />
this page to that. Q. Are you aware of a reference to that effect on any document<br />
that you’ve seen anywhere? A. No.” 200:4–19.<br />
• “Q. Do you know whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re’s a document in existence or that has ever been in<br />
existence in which <strong>the</strong> New York Fed has stated publicly that it believes that it<br />
acquired <strong>from</strong> AIG, AIG’s fraud or tort claims with respect to <strong>the</strong> residential<br />
mortgage-backed securities that were sold into ML II? [Objection] A. No. Q.<br />
Have you ever seen any such statement to that effect by <strong>the</strong> New York Fed? A.<br />
No. Q. . . . Have you ever seen a non-public statement to that effect? [Objection]<br />
A. No.” 248:18–249:22.<br />
Mahoney testified that he did not understand <strong>the</strong> term “Related Instruments” to include<br />
litigation claims.<br />
• “Q. In that respect, <strong>the</strong> terms RMBS . . . we’re focused on <strong>the</strong> words ‘Related<br />
Instruments.’ Do you recall in 2008 having discussions with anyone at AIG as to what<br />
that provision in <strong>the</strong> APA meant? A. No. . . . [T]he legal documents were drafted by<br />
legal counsel, outside counsel. And I would not have gotten involved in those types<br />
of discussions with AIG, with members of AIG or AIG’s counsel. Q. . . . Do you<br />
remember discussing what <strong>the</strong> phrase or term ‘Related Instruments’, <strong>the</strong> defined term in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Asset Purchase Agreement, meant with anyone internally at <strong>the</strong> New York Fed? A.<br />
No, I do not. Q. And how about with respect to your outside advisers? Do you remember<br />
discussing it with any of your outside advisers, legal or banking or accounting advisers?<br />
A. No.” 50:9–51:8.<br />
• “Q. [] Is it fair to say you also don’t recall spending any time in 2008 focused on that<br />
provision, ‘Related Instruments’, as <strong>the</strong> Maiden Lane transaction was being<br />
consummated? [Objection] A. It would be fair to say I did not focus on that. I read<br />
<strong>the</strong> legal documents more for things that contradicted my understanding of what<br />
should be in it. But . . . it’s a pretty involved definition that I would interpret has<br />
meanings beyond a laymen’s interpretation of those meanings. So, I did not probe, it<br />
would have taken too long to probe every single thing I didn’t fully understand.”<br />
51:9–52:2.<br />
• “A. For example, when I first read of ‘related instruments,’ I thought of derivative<br />
contracts, maybe interest rate swaps or FX swaps that are related to <strong>the</strong> RMBS.<br />
Because CDOs, for example, do have embedded derivative contracts.” 37:20–25.<br />
• “A. From a business perspective reading this, you would think that this would<br />
include <strong>the</strong> legal documentation and <strong>the</strong> governance supporting that is being<br />
transferred in <strong>the</strong> purchase of <strong>the</strong>se assets over to Maiden Lane II.” 159:7–12.<br />
• “Q. [D]o you recall <strong>the</strong> issue of ‘Related Instruments’, or <strong>the</strong> definition of ‘Related<br />
Instruments’, ever being <strong>the</strong> subject of any discussion . . . irrespective of whe<strong>the</strong>r you<br />
ever partook in it, being <strong>the</strong> subject of any discussion between AIG on <strong>the</strong> one hand and<br />
<strong>the</strong> New York Fed on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r? [Objection] A. So, <strong>the</strong>re were a lot of conversations<br />
that I was not privy to. But no, I’m not familiar with any . . . conversations with<br />
third parties.” 52:12–53:3.<br />
EXHIBIT 4<br />
5