David Wood, a partner at Anderson, Kill in Ventura, Calif., said he was "staggered" that AIG would be considering joining a suit against the federal government as requested by Greenberg.
Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, agreed.
Hunter added that "AIG should do the right thing Wednesday morning and toss Greenberg and his lackeys out the door when they arrive to make their pitch for AIG to join this ugly lawsuit. The courts should quickly do likewise.
For his part, Wood said, "I am staggered by this."
Wood, in an article in the New York Times in early 2009, was the first to publicly raise the issue that AIG policyholders might be at risk because AIG's insurance subsidiaries were being used to cross-guarantee the speculative trading at the AIG Financial Products (AIGFP) subsidiary that was the source of most of its problems.
The report was released in October 2010. These were confirmed through a report conducted by an outside firm and commissioned by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department that indicated that the insurance subsidiaries, both property and casualty, and life, had cross-guaranteed the trading of AIGFP.
The Federal Reserve stepped in in September after AIGFP was unable to meet margin calls on $2.77 trillion in credit default swaps that insured bank purchases of mortgage-backed securities and so-called "synthetic securities," called collateralized debt obligations.
"AIG always had the option of reorganizing through the courts," Wood said. But, in this case, he said, "When AIG talks about a 'superior duty to shareholders,' what its board means is that it has a superior duty to Greenberg."
Wood said that what Greenberg is complaining about is that AIG was in such unsound condition when the Fed and taxpayers stepped in that it had to take whatever the government was offering as an alternative to bankruptcy."
Wood is an insurance lawyer in California for Anderson, Kill, which specializes in representing claimants against insurers. Wood cited the common law doctrine of economic duress, which allows a plaintiff to escape liability or to back out of a deal if the counterparty was "effectively holding a gun to its head" if the plaintiff didn't agree to the business terms.
