Litigation

Failure to Think Things Through

By John Darer

What is former NSSTA President Patrick Hindert smoking for implying that Treasury should deny Hartford TARP funds because of a legal case that has not yet been decided,  Spencer v Hartford?

Hindert asks: "Should federal officials consider Spencer v. Hartford if and when Hartford applies for federal TARP funds?"

In November 2008 Reuters reported that Hartford agreed to buy Sanford, Florida-based Federal Trust Corp, which operates the 11-branch thrift Federal Trust Bank, for $10 million. According to the report the insurer said it plans to recapitalize Federal Trust, and has applied to the federal Office of Thrift Supervision to become a savings and loan holding company with said development hopefully allowing it to sell $1.1 billion to $3.4 billion of preferred shares to the government under the Treasury Department's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

As the legal process takes it course one wonders why Hindert would imply that a piece of litigation should have any effect on TARP eligibilty?  Why wouldn't the Spencer litigants be interested in enhanced financial security? What about the millions of other owners or beneficiaries of Hartford insurance products?

April 9, 2009 article in Hartford Courant on Insurers and TARP

Full post as published by Structured Settlements 4Real on April 19, 2009 (boomark / email).