This is actually a good ruling as it limits the Fed's abilities to bailout large banks. The main crux of the argument is that the Fed treated AIG (insurance) in a tougher manner than Morgan Stanley (finance), etc. and that, with other things, is illegal (basically, the Fed unjustly favored the banks with the bailout. It demonstrates how the Fed is more beholden to Wall Street). This ruling makes it much riskier to depend on receiving a bailout from the Fed in order to publicly subsidize risky activities. Here's some brief analysis. It's also pushing back on Wall Street's encroachment into monetary policy.
I agree and I disagree. For instance, I do think the judge was making it fairly clear it was a "statement" ruling and not one meant to dish out actual justice -- else he would have awarded monetary damages. Nonetheless it's a bit naive. History will out, I guess.
the key here is that AIG has already been awarded monetary damages several years ago in the form of a bailout (although with harsher terms, hence the lawsuit). Why would you give them more? The judge is reprimanding both plaintiff and defendant in this ruling, which is appropriate given the situation
Indeed. And I am happy to agree with anyone who is worried about the government stepping and controlling a company. Obama famously fired the CEO of General Motors. However, I've spent a good bit of time examining the economics of the bailout and my conclusion is: it had to happen, and while there are steps available to curtail its happening again, this ruling is not the best of them.