Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 30 Sep 2010
Today, the U.S. Treasury Department and American International Group, Inc. (AIG) announced that they had reached an agreement-in-principle with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and the trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust regarding the repayment by AIG of funds made available to it by U.S. taxpayers.
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 28 Apr 2010
Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office released a report entitled "Update of Government Assistance Provided to AIG."
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 30 Oct 2009
Yesterday, the House Committee on Financial Services held a hearing entitled "Systemic Regulation, Prudential Matters, Resolution Authority and Securitization."
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 23 Jul 2009
Subsequent to the Supreme Court’s decision in MetLife v. Glenn, 128 S.Ct. 2343 (2008), federal courts around the country have attempted to reconcile Glenn’s holding – that a structural conflict of interest exists when an employer “both funds the [employee benefit] plan and evaluates the claims” – with prior circuit court precedent holding that no conflict of interest exists when......
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 29 Jun 2009
This past Thursday, AIG announced that it had reached an agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) under which the FRBNY will receive a preferred interest in AIG’s two largest overseas life insurance units, American International Assurance (AIA) and the American Life Insurance Company (ALICO).
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 25 Sep 2008
The Eleventh Circuit has held that the “heightened” arbitrary and capricious standard of review previously used by the court in cases where a conflicted plan administrator decided a claim for benefits — and its accompanying burden-shifting analysis — does not survive the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008).
Alston & Bird LLP | USA | 23 Jun 2008
The Supreme Court’s Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn decision, issued on June 19, 2008, addressed two questions: (1) whether an ERISA plan administrator’s dual roles as both evaluator and payor of employee benefits claims indicates the presence of a conflict of interest; and (2) if so, how such a conflict should be taken into account during judicial review of the benefits claims decision.