UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

KEVIN J. MURRAY

CIVIL NO. 08-15147

Plaintiff,

HON. LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

-vs- MAG. JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, Secretary, U.S. 

Department of the Treasury, and BOARD OF

GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL

RESERVE SYSTEM,

Defendants.

 /

DEFENDANT TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER'S RESPONSE 

TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36, Defendant Timothy F. Geithner

(“Defendant”) responds to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission Directed to Defendant Timothy F.

Geithner (“Requests for Admission”) as follows:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission insofar as they seek

information that is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim. The nature of the claim

at issue determines the permissible scope of discovery. Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claim is

that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”), as applied to the Department

of the Treasury’s purchase of preferred stock of American International Group, Inc. (“AIG”),

violates the First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion.” Thus, to the extent that any of the Requests below relate to

government assistance provided to AIG pursuant to alternative statutory authority, including the

- 1 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1783 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 49
Federal Reserve Act, or otherwise do not relate to Plaintiff’s as-applied challenge to the EESA,

such Requests are irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and, therefore, not “within the

scope of Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1).

2. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission to the extent that Plaintiff

seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity

recognized under statute or applicable case law.

3. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission to the extent Plaintiff’s

requests are directed toward conclusions of law.

4. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission to the extent Plaintiff’s

requests are directed toward theological or religious propositions.

5. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admissions to the extent they are

vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, or compound. Where possible, Defendant will construe an

ambiguous request that is not otherwise objectionable, and answer to the best of his ability based

on a reasonable interpretation of the request. 

6. Defendant objects to the sheer volume of these Requests for Admission as unduly

burdensome, particularly given the fact that most of these Requests are objectionable.

7. The following responses are based upon information currently known to

Defendant based on a reasonable inquiry, and Defendant reserves the right to withdraw or amend

his responses should additional or different information become available.

8. Nothing contained in the following responses constitutes a waiver of any

applicable objection or privilege as to the requested discovery.

- 2 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1784 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 49
9. All of the General Objections set forth herein are incorporated by reference into

and made a part of each individual response set forth below.

- 3 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1785 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 49
RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

1. The use of taxpayer funds to approve, promote, endorse, support, or fund

Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of the First

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

2. The use of taxpayer funds to acquire government control of a company that

engages in Shariah-based Islamic religious activities violates the Establishment Clause of

the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

3. Defendant Geithner is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Admit only that Defendant Geithner is the Secretary, United States Department of the

Treasury.

4. Defendant Geithner is charged by Congress with administering the Act,

including TARP.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion.

5. Prior to assuming his duties as the Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury,

Timothy Geithner was the President of the FRBNY.

Admit.

6. The Fed is an agency of the U.S. Government.

Admit.

- 4 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1786 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 49
7. Pursuant to its authority under the taxing and spending clause of Article I,

section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress passed the Act.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that Congress passed the

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA” or the “Act”).

8. The Act is an express congressional mandate and a specific congressional

appropriation to expend taxpayer funds.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

9. The Act took effect on October 3, 2008.

Admit.

10. The Act authorizes Defendant Geithner to establish TARP "to purchase, and

to make fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion.

11. As defined by the Act (12 U.S.C. § 5202), the term "financial institution"

means, inter alia, "any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings

association, credit union, security broker or dealer or insurance company, established and

regulated under the laws of the United States . . . and having significant operations in the

United States."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion.

12. According to the Act, the term "troubled assets" means, inter alia, "any

other financial instrument that [Defendant Geithner], after consultation with the

- 5 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1787 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 49
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System [the Fed], determines

the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon

transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion.

13. Decisions by Defendant Geithner pursuant to the Act are subject to

congressional control and oversight.

Defendant objects to this request as vague and as seeking a legal conclusion.

14. The taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Act may not be used at the

sole discretion of Defendant Geithner.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

15. The taxpayer funds appropriated pursuant to the Act are not general

appropriations provided to the Executive Branch to support its day-to-day activities.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

16. The Act seeks to "maximize[] overall returns to the taxpayers of the United

States." (12 U.S.C. § 5201).

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion.

17. When Congress passed the Act, it understood that AIG would be a

beneficiary of some of the appropriated taxpayer funds.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and, to the extent it seeks to

establish a legislative purpose for the EESA, as seeking a legal conclusion. Defendant also

- 6 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1788 Filed 04/26/10 Page 6 of 49
objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that an entire branch of the federal government

— as opposed to individuals within that branch of the federal government — can have an

understanding of some factual matter, is nonsensical.

18. When Congress passed the Act, the U.S. Department of Treasury understood

that AIG would be a beneficiary of some of the appropriated taxpayer funds.

Defendant objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that a government agency –

as opposed to individuals within a government agency — can have an understanding of some

factual matter, is nonsensical. To the extent a response is deemed required, deny.

19. Takaful insurance is an example of a Shariah-compliant financial product.

Defendant objects to this request as it asks a federal agency to admit or deny a specific

interpretation of religious terms, not a fact, the application of law to fact, or an opinion about

either. 

20. When Congress passed the Act, it understood that AIG offered

Shariah-compliant financial products such as Takaful insurance.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and, to the extent it seeks to

establish a legislative purpose for the EESA, as seeking a legal conclusion. Defendant also

objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that an entire branch of the federal government

— as opposed to individuals within that branch of the federal government — can have an

understanding of some factual matter, is nonsensical. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant states that, after a reasonable inquiry, he is unable to admit or deny, except to deny

that any of the available legislative history suggests that any member of Congress understood that

AIG offered Shariah-compliant financial products when Congress passed the EESA.

- 7 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1789 Filed 04/26/10 Page 7 of 49
21. When Congress passed the Act, the U.S. Department of Treasury understood

that AIG offered Shariah-compliant financial products such as Takaful insurance.

Defendant objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that a government agency –

as opposed to individuals within a government agency — can have an understanding of some

factual matter, is nonsensical. To the extent a response is deemed required, deny.

22. Pursuant to the Act, Congress authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of

Treasury, to expend taxpayer funds to support the operations of AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, and as seeking a legal conclusion.

23. The Act does not require Defendant Geithner, the Fed, or any other officer

or agency of the U.S. Government to police the expenditure of taxpayer funds to ensure

that they are not being used to fund businesses providing Shariah-compliant financial

products.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

24. The Act does not provide any mechanism by which the U.S. Government or

its agents, including Defendant, could police the expenditure of taxpayer funds to

businesses providing Shariah-compliant financial products.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

25. Pursuant to the Act, the U.S. Government has provided federal taxpayer

funds to AIG without prohibiting AIG from using this money for its Shariah-compliant

businesses or Shariah compliant financial products.

- 8 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1790 Filed 04/26/10 Page 8 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as the terms “federal taxpayer funds” and “Shariahcompliant” are vague, ambiguous, and ask a federal agency to admit or deny a specific

interpretation of a religious term, not a fact, or the application of law to fact. To the extent a

response is required, deny, except to admit that the Securities Purchase Agreement between the

United States Department of the Treasury and AIG dated April 17, 2009 does not prohibit AIG

from using funds provided pursuant to that agreement to support any specific subsidiary.

26. In early- to mid-September 2008, the Fed, the FRBNY, and the U.S.

Department of Treasury believed that AIG was imminently in danger of collapsing, which

would have had a devastating effect on the financial markets.

Defendant objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that a government agency –

as opposed to individuals within a government agency — can have an understanding of some

factual matter, is nonsensical. To the extent a response is deemed required, deny, except to admit

that by September 16, 2008 certain officials in the United States Department of the Treasury

concluded that AIG faced the imminent prospect of a disorderly failure, and that such failure was

likely to have a systemic effect on financial markets that were already experiencing a significant

level of fragility.

27. During early- to mid-September 2008, Congress was in the process of

working out the details of the Act.

Deny.

28. The Act authorized the use of federal taxpayer funds to financially support

the operations of AIG to prevent AIG's collapse.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative and as seeking a legal

- 9 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1791 Filed 04/26/10 Page 9 of 49
conclusion.

29. Prior to the passage of the Act, Defendant Geithner, who was then President

of the FRBNY, determined that it would be necessary to immediately expend federal funds

to prevent the collapse of AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as vague and as seeking irrelevant information. To the

extent a response is required, deny. 

30. Through the expenditure of federal funds provided by the FRBNY ("the

Credit Facility"), the U.S. Government acquired a super-majority equity interest (77.9%)

in AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as vague and as seeking irrelevant information. To the

extent a response is required, deny.

31. The U.S. Government acquired control of AIG through the expenditure of

federal funds, including the expenditure of federal taxpayer funds authorized by the Act.

Deny.

32. At the time of the Credit Facility, neither the Fed nor the FRBNY was

authorized to acquire controlling equity interests in member or non-member financial

institutions as an element or deal-term of a financial assistance effort.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion, and as seeking irrelevant

information.

33. At the time of the Credit Facility, the U.S. Department of Treasury was not

authorized to acquire controlling equity interests in member or non-member financial

institutions as an element or deal-term of a financial assistance effort.

- 10 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1792 Filed 04/26/10 Page 10 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion.

34. Pursuant to the Act, Congress, through the Secretary, U.S. Department of

Treasury, authorized the expenditure of $40 billion in TARP funds to AIG. 

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion. 

35. When Congress, through the Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury,

authorized the expenditure of $40 billion in TARP funds to AIG, Congress understood that

AIG offered Shariah-compliant financial products such as Takaful insurance.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, vague, and to the extent it

seeks to establish a legislative purpose for the EESA, as seeking a legal conclusion. Defendant

also objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that an entire branch of the federal

government — as opposed to individuals within that branch of the federal government — can

have an understanding of some factual matter, is nonsensical. To the extent a response is

required, Defendant states that, after a reasonable inquiry, it is unable to admit or deny, except to

deny that any of the available legislative history suggests that any member of Congress

understood that AIG or any of its subsidiaries marketed Shariah-compliant financial products

when Congress passed the EESA.

36. When Congress, through the Secretary, U.S. Department of Treasury,

authorized the expenditure of $40 billion in TARP funds to AIG, the U.S. Department of

Treasury understood that AIG offered Shariah-compliant financial products such as

Takaful insurance.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, vague, and, to the extent

it seeks to establish a legislative purpose for the EESA, as seeking a legal conclusion. Defendant

- 11 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1793 Filed 04/26/10 Page 11 of 49
also objects to this request, as the underlying premise, that a government agency – as opposed to

individuals within a government agency — can have an understanding of some factual matter, is

nonsensical. To the extent a response is deemed required, deny.

37. The first $40 billion in TARP funds provided to AIG pursuant to the Act

were used to replace $40 billion in federal funds that were previously loaned to AIG by the

FRBNY and/or the Fed.

Deny, except to admit that the proceeds of AIG’s sale of Series D Preferred Shares to the

Department of the Treasury were used to pay down a portion of AIG’s indebtedness to the

FRBNY.

38. Rather than provide a bridge loan from the Fed or the FRBNY to AIG,

Congress, through the Act, funded AIG to prevent AIG's collapse and bankruptcy.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, vague, and to the extent it

seeks to establish a legislative purpose for the EESA, as seeking a legal conclusion.

39. As a result of the expenditure of federal funds, including the expenditure of

TARP funds pursuant to the Act, the U.S. Government acquired a majority ownership

interest in AIG.

Deny.

40. As a result of the expenditure of federal funds, including the expenditure of

TARP funds pursuant to the Act, the U.S. Government has a vested interest in the success

of AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, and vague.

41. As a result of the expenditure of federal funds, including the expenditure of

- 12 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1794 Filed 04/26/10 Page 12 of 49
TARP funds pursuant to the Act, the U.S. Government stands to profit from the success of

AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, and vague.

42. On or about September 22, 2008, an agreement was reached to send tens of

billions of taxpayer funds to AIG in exchange for a super-majority equity interest in AIG,

which would put the company under the control of the U.S. Government.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, vague, as seeking a legal

conclusion, and as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a response is required, deny.

43. The September 22, 2008, agreement was memorialized in the AIG Credit

Facility Agreement putatively entered into between the FRBNY and AIG (the "Credit

Facility Agreement").

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant denies, except to admit that on September 22, 2008

representatives of the FRBNY and AIG signed a credit agreement, which has since been

amended several times (“Credit Agreement”).

44. The Credit Facility Agreement purportedly authorized the FRBNY,

pursuant to the emergency powers granted to the Fed by Congress under § 13(3) of the

Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 343), to open up a credit facility to loan AIG up to $85

billion in federal funds.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant denies, except to admit that pursuant to the Credit Agreement,

the FRBNY initially agreed to extend credit to AIG of up to $85 billion.

- 13 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1795 Filed 04/26/10 Page 13 of 49
45. In consideration for the loan described above, AIG agreed to provide the

FRBNY with a security interest in effectively all of AIG's assets subject to collateralization

pursuant to a Guarantee and Pledge Agreement that was also dated September 22, 2008.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant denies, except to admit that, according to the FRBNY, “the loan

is collateralized by all of the assets of AIG, and of its primary non-regulated subsidiaries.”

46. The Credit Facility Agreement obligated AIG to transfer into a trust (the

"AIG Credit Facility Trust" or "Trust") for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury

approximately 79.9% (later reduced to 77.9%) of the aggregate voting power of AIG's

common stock and a like percentage of any of AIG's dividend payments.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, admit.

47. The transfer of voting power and dividend payments described above

required the creation of the AIG Credit Facility Trust Agreement dated January 16, 2009. 

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant Geithner denies, except to admit that the FRBNY and Jill M.

Considine, Chester B. Feldberg, and Douglas Foshee signed the AIG Credit Facility Trust

Agreement on January 16, 2009.

48. The transfer of voting power and dividend payments described above was

obligated notwithstanding that neither the AIG Credit Facility Trust, the U.S. Treasury,

nor the U.S. Department of Treasury was named as a party to the Credit Facility

Agreement.

- 14 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1796 Filed 04/26/10 Page 14 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, and as seeking irrelevant information. 

To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that the AIG Credit Facility Trust, the

United States Department of the Treasury, and the United States Treasury (i.e., the General Fund)

were not signatories to the Credit Agreement.

49. The U.S. Treasury is not a valid beneficiary for the Trust because it is not an

entity, government body, agency, or department capable of acquiring a legal or beneficial

interest in any asset.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as seeking irrelevant information, and

as seeking a legal conclusion.

50. After the passage of the Act on October 3, 2008, the Secretary, U.S.

Department of Treasury, authorized the transfer of $40 billion of TARP funds to AIG on

the condition that AIG use those funds to replace $40 billion of the federal funds provided

under the Credit Facility Agreement.

Deny, except to admit that on November 25, 2008, the Department of the Treasury

purchased $40 billion of AIG preferred stock, the proceeds of which were to be used exclusively

to pay down AIG’s indebtedness to the FRBNY.

51. The agreement described above was memorialized in the Securities Purchase

Agreement dated November 25, 2008, between AIG and the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Deny, except to admit the existence of the Securities Purchase Agreement dated

November 25, 2008 between AIG and the United States Department of the Treasury.

52. While the Securities Purchase Agreement nominally identifies the

consideration for the $40 billion of TARP funds as 4,000,000 shares of Series D Fixed Rate

- 15 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1797 Filed 04/26/10 Page 15 of 49
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock ("Series D Preferred") and a warrant to purchase

53,798,766 shares of AIG's common stock, given the market value of AIG and its balance

sheet at the time of this transaction, this consideration was less valuable than the

controlling interest transferred for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury via the Series C

Perpetual, Convertible, Participating Preferred Stock ("Series C Preferred").

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, vague, and as seeking a

speculative response. To the extent a response is required, deny.

53. The controlling interest transferred for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury via

the Series C Perpetual, Convertible, Participating Preferred Stock ("Series C Preferred")

was the actual consideration for the $40 billion of TARP funds authorized by the Act.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, irrelevant, and as seeking a legal conclusion.

To the extent a response is required, deny.

54. The "redemption" provision of the $40 billion Securities Purchase

Agreement (i.e., TARP funds to acquire Series D Preferred) entered into between the U.S.

Department of Treasury and AIG requires AIG and its shareholders to grant a liquidation

preference to the Series D Preferred over the earlier acquired Series C Preferred.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, irrelevant, and as seeking a legal conclusion.

To the extent a response is required, deny. 

55. The primary purpose of Series C Preferred was to transfer 77.9% of the

equity and voting rights of AIG to the U.S. Government through debt.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, vague, and as seeking irrelevant

information. To the extent a response is required, deny.

- 16 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1798 Filed 04/26/10 Page 16 of 49
56. The primary purpose of the Series D Preferred was to provide the liquidation

preference over all other shareholders, including other preferred shareholders, through

equity.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, and vague. To the extent

a response is required, deny.

57. As a result of the combined Series C Preferred and Series D Preferred

transaction, the Trustees gained super-majority controlling voting rights and liquidation

preference in AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, ambiguous, and vague. To the extent

a response is required, deny. 

58. Through the Act, the U.S. Government provided taxpayer funds to support

AIG's operations.

Deny, except to admit that pursuant to the EESA, the United States Department of the

Treasury has purchased AIG preferred stock, the proceeds of which were used to pay down

indebtedness to the FRBNY and to enhance the company's capital and liquidity in order to

facilitate the orderly completion of the company's global divestiture program.

59. Through the Act, the U.S. Government provided taxpayer funds to prevent

AIG's collapse.

Deny, except to admit that pursuant to the EESA, the United States Department of the

Treasury has purchased AIG preferred stock, the proceeds of which were used to pay down

indebtedness to the FRBNY and to enhance the company's capital and liquidity in order to

facilitate the orderly completion of the company's global divestiture program.

- 17 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1799 Filed 04/26/10 Page 17 of 49
60. Through the Act and the expenditure of federal funds, the U.S. Government

gained control of AIG.

Deny.

61. The Trust was established to exercise the controlling voting interests, but the

Trustees are required to act and vote their interests on behalf of the public and the U.S.

Government's concerns.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

62. The Fed maintains ultimate discretion and authority over the powers, terms,

and existence of the Trust.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as seeking a legal conclusion, and as

seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that

the AIG Credit Facility Trust Agreement states “that the Board of Governors may terminate or

amend its authorization pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, thereby revoking

or amending the Trust in accordance with Federal law. . . .”

63. The U.S. Department of Treasury used TARP funds pursuant to the Act to

acquire $40 billion of Series D Preferred, which provided substantial capital to AIG so that

AIG could continue its operations and purportedly pay down the loan funds FRBNY used

to acquire the voting rights provided by the Series C Preferred.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. To the extent

a response is required, deny, except to admit that, pursuant to the EESA, the United States

Department of the Treasury purchased $40 billion of AIG Series D Preferred Stock, the proceeds

- 18 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1800 Filed 04/26/10 Page 18 of 49
of which were used by AIG exclusively to pay down its indebtedness to the FRBNY.

64. The Fed and the FRBNY, with the knowledge, advice, and consent of

Defendant Geithner, Chairman Bernanke, and then U.S. Department of Treasury

Secretary Paulson, provided federal loans to AIG to fund its general operations with an

understanding that some of those funds would be replaced with funds authorized by the

Act.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, argumentative, and as seeking

irrelevant information. To the extent a response is required, deny.

65. On April 17, 2009, pursuant to the authority granted under the Act,

Defendant Geithner entered into an agreement with AIG to provide an additional $29.835

billion of TARP funds to AIG.

Deny, except to admit that on April 17, 2009, the Department of the Treasury and AIG

finalized an agreement (“the Series F Securities Purchase Agreement”), pursuant to the EESA,

whereby the Department of the Treasury agreed to provide up to $29.835 billion dollars to AIG

in exchange for preferred stock and a warrant to purchase common stock.

66. Under the April 17, 2009, agreement, AIG is free to draw on this equity line

at its discretion to fund all of its operations and activities, including its Shariah-compliant

business activities.

Deny. 

67. There are no restrictions on AIG's use of federal taxpayer dollars that are

provided pursuant to the Act other than the use of funds for employee compensation.

Deny.

- 19 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1801 Filed 04/26/10 Page 19 of 49
68. The federal funds provided to AIG pursuant to the Act are provided to

support the overall operations and vitality of AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as vague and ambiguous. To the extent a response is

required, Defendant admits only that funds provided pursuant to the Act were provided to AIG to 

enhance the company’s capital and liquidity in order to facilitate the orderly completion of the

company’s global divestiture plan.

69. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars remain available to Defendant

Geithner to fund AIG and its operations and activities pursuant to the Act.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, speculative, and as seeking a

legal conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that of the $700

billion authorized to be expended for the purchase of troubled assets pursuant to the EESA, as of

February 28 2010, the United States Department of the Treasury has obligated nearly $485

billion to specific institutions under executed legal agreements.

70. As a result of the Act, the U.S. Government and AIG are joint participants in

the business activities of AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

71. AIG is a corporation that Congress rescued from collapse and extinction by

virtue of the appropriation and expenditure of federal tax funds pursuant to the Act.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, speculative, and as seeking a

legal conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

72. With the assistance of federal tax dollars expended pursuant to the Act,

- 20 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1802 Filed 04/26/10 Page 20 of 49
Congress placed AIG under governmental control for the purpose of achieving a

governmental objective (namely, to avert the threatened collapse of the financial markets in

the United States).

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, speculative, and as seeking a

legal conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

73. AIG exists today because of congressional action, which specifically includes

the appropriation and expenditure of federal tax funds pursuant to the Act.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, argumentative, speculative, and as seeking a

legal conclusion. To the extent a response is required, Defendant states that, after a reasonable

inquiry, he is unable to admit or deny Plaintiff’s speculation regarding what effect Congress’s

failure to pass the EESA may have had on AIG. 

74. On or about September 17, 2008, then U.S. Department of Treasury

Secretary Paulson made the decision that AIG must terminate its relationship with Robert

Willumstand as AIG's Chief Executive Officer.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, deny except to admit that as a condition of government assistance, the

government, with Mr. Paulson’s involvement, requested Mr. Willumstad's resignation as AIG's

Chief Executive Officer.

75. On or about September 17, 2008, then FRBNY President Geithner made the

decision that AIG must terminate its relationship with Robert Willumstand as AIG's Chief

Executive Officer.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

- 21 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1803 Filed 04/26/10 Page 21 of 49
response is required, deny except to admit that as a condition of government assistance, the

government, with Mr. Geithner’s involvement, requested Mr. Willumstad's resignation as AIG's

Chief Executive Officer.

76. On or about September 17, 2008, Fed Chairman Bernanke made the decision

that AIG must terminate its relationship with Robert Willumstand as AIG's Chief

Executive Officer.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, deny.

77. On or about September 18, 2008, then U.S. Department of Treasury

Secretary Paulson played a primary role in the appointment of Edward Liddy as the

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to run AIG on behalf of the U.S. Government's

interests.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as seeking irrelevant information, and

because the term “primary” is ambiguous. To the extent a response is required, deny.

78. On or about September 18, 2008, then FRBNY President Geithner played a

primary role in the appointment of Edward Liddy as the Chairman and Chief Executive

Officer to run AIG on behalf of the U.S. Government’s interests.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as seeking irrelevant information, and

because the term “primary” is ambiguous. To the extent a response is required, deny.

79. On or about September 18, 2008, Fed Chairman Bernanke played a primary

role in the appointment of Edward Liddy as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to

run AIG on behalf of the U.S. Government's interests.

- 22 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1804 Filed 04/26/10 Page 22 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as seeking irrelevant information, and

because the term “primary” is ambiguous. To the extent a response is required, deny.

80. Edward Liddy was compensated $1 a year for his service as the Chairman

and Chief Executive Officer of AIG.

Defendant Geithner objects to this request as vague and as seeking irrelevant information.

To the extent a response is required, deny.

81. In March 2009, while testifying before Congress, Edward Liddy stated, "Six

months ago I came out of retirement to help my country. At the government's request I've

had the duty and extraordinary challenge of serving as chairman and chief executive

officer of American International Group, or A.I.G."

Admit only that this is a substantially accurate quotation of Mr. Liddy’s testimony during

a hearing before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored

Enterprises of the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives.

82. On May 13, 2009, Edward Liddy testified before Congress, stating that as a

result of "[t]he infusion of substantial U.S. Government capital to AIG," the Fed and the

U.S. Department of Treasury have become AIG's "primary day-to-day partners in

government."

Deny.

83. Edward Liddy testified truthfully before Congress with regard to the above

testimony.

Defendant objects to this request as compound, ambiguous, and as being based on the

false premise that Plaintiff’s requests accurately reflect Mr. Liddy’s testimony.

- 23 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1805 Filed 04/26/10 Page 23 of 49
84. After Edward Liddy stepped down from his post at AIG, Defendant

Geithner publicly praised Liddy for his work, stating that Liddy "shouldered this burden

out of a strong sense of duty and patriotism."

Admit.

85. U.S. Government officials are involved in the operations of AIG, which

remain under congressional oversight and scrutiny.

Defendant objects to this request, specifically the terms “U.S. Government officials,”

“involved,” “oversight,” “operations,” and “scrutiny,” as vague, ambiguous and unduly

burdensome.

86. U.S. Government agents and officials have attended and participated in

meetings at AIG following the passage of the Act.

Admit.

87. The AIG Credit Facility Trust provides U.S. Government control of AIG.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

88. The AIG Credit Facility Trust was created by the Fed pursuant to its

authority under 12 U.S.C. § 343.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

89. The Trustees were appointed by the FRBNY, but only after consultation with

the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

- 24 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1806 Filed 04/26/10 Page 24 of 49
response is required, admit.

90. Replacement Trustees are subject to U.S. Department of Treasury

consultation.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, admit only that, pursuant to section 3.02(e) of the AIG Credit Facility Trust

Agreement, “[i]n the event of any vacancy in the office of Trustee as a result of removal, the

FRBNY, after consultation with the Treasury Department and the Trustees then in office, shall,

by written instrument or instruments delivered to the successor Trustee, fill such vacancy by

appointing a successor Trustee who shall satisfy the requirements of Section 3.01 [of the AIG

Credit Facility Trust Agreement].”

91. All acts by the Trustees must be for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that the trustees must, in

their capacity as trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust, act for the benefit of the U.S. Treasury,

which, for the avoidance of doubt, means the General Fund and not the United States Department

of the Treasury.

92. The Trustees are required to exercise their voting rights to ensure that

corporate governance of AIG is beneficial to the U.S. Treasury and to protect the overall

stability of the economy.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

93. As a result of the Trust and subsequent transactions between the U.S.

- 25 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1807 Filed 04/26/10 Page 25 of 49
Department of Treasury and AIG pursuant to the Act, all funds collected by dividend or

disposition of AIG stock and paid to the FRBNY, the Trust, or the U.S. Department of

Treasury are paid into the U.S. Treasury.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and confusing. To the extent a

response is required, deny. 

94. Funds held in the U.S. Treasury are for the use of the U.S. Government and

expended by Congress.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking a legal conclusion.

95. As a result of the Act, the interests of AIG are subservient to the interests of

the U.S. Government.

Defendant objects to this request, specifically the terms “interests” and “subservient,” as

vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Defendant also objects to this request as seeking a legal

conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

96. The Trustees have the authority and power of an independent agency of the

U.S. Government because their sole duty is to act in the place of and for the benefit of the

U.S. Government.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Defendant

also objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion and as seeking irrelevant information. 

To the extent a response is required, deny.

97. All of the beneficial interests of the Trust belong to the U.S. Treasury.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant admits only that the U.S. Treasury (i.e., the General Fund) is the

- 26 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1808 Filed 04/26/10 Page 26 of 49
beneficiary of the AIG Credit Facility Trust.

98. The funds held in the U.S. Treasury are ultimately controlled by Congress

for the benefit of federal taxpayers.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking a legal conclusion, and

as seeking irrelevant information.

99. The Trust is ultimately controlled in whole by the Fed.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking a legal conclusion, and

as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a response is required, deny.

100. The Trust agreement may be set aside unilaterally by the Fed at any time

subject to the terms of Section 1.03 of the Credit Facility Trust Agreement. 

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking a legal conclusion, and

as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that

Section 1.03 of the AIG Credit Facility Trust Agreement states, “Trust is Irrevocable. This Trust

Agreement and the Trust shall be irrevocable and, except as provided in Section 5.01 hereof,

unamendable except that the Board of Governors may terminate or amend its authorization

pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, thereby revoking or amending the Trust in

accordance with Federal law, provided, however, that a Trustee’s rights to resign as a trustee

hereunder and to compensation and indemnification with respect to acts or omissions occurring

prior to any such revocation or amendment may not be modified without the written consent of

that Trustee.”

101. Section 1.03 of the Credit Facility Trust Agreement provides that the Fed has

authority to revoke or amend the Trust.

- 27 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1809 Filed 04/26/10 Page 27 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking a legal conclusion, and

as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that

Section 1.03 of the AIG Credit Facility Trust Agreement states, “Trust is Irrevocable. This Trust

Agreement and the Trust shall be irrevocable and, except as provided in Section 5.01 hereof,

unamendable except that the Board of Governors may terminate or amend its authorization

pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act, thereby revoking or amending the Trust in

accordance with Federal law, provided, however, that a Trustee’s rights to resign as a trustee

hereunder and to compensation and indemnification with respect to acts or omissions occurring

prior to any such revocation or amendment may not be modified without the written consent of

that Trustee.”

102. The U.S. Government could unilaterally alter any and all agreements it had

entered into with AIG by forcing a shareholder meeting and the use of a proxy statement

or by simply replacing the board with those who would follow its orders (the agreements

could also be unilaterally changed to allow the Trustees, the Fed, the U.S. Department of

Treasury, or Congress to appoint its own board members).

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, speculative, as seeking a legal

conclusion, and as seeking irrelevant information.

103. The Trustees could unilaterally alter any and all agreements it or the U.S.

Government had entered into with AIG by forcing a shareholder meeting and the use of a

proxy statement or by simply replacing the board with those who would follow its orders

(the agreements could also be unilaterally changed to allow the Trustees, the Fed, the U.S.

Department of Treasury, or Congress to appoint its own board members).

- 28 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1810 Filed 04/26/10 Page 28 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, speculative, as seeking a legal

conclusion, and as seeking irrelevant information.

104. On May 13, 2009, the Trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust made the

following joint statement to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S.

House of Representatives: "The Committee has posed this question: 'Is the U.S. taxpayer

investment in AIG being adequately protected?' This is the critical question; it motivates

all of our considerations and all of our actions. Under the Trust Agreement, we are charged

with exercising the voting rights of the shares held in the Trust in the best interests of the

U.S. Treasury and with a view towards maximizing the value of the AIG stock held by the

Trust. Of course, we are not the only actors with this goal. The Federal Reserve Bank of

New York (the 'FRBNY'), the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Treasury Department, this

Committee and the U.S. Congress also have as a goal the maximizing the value of the

taxpayers' stock so that the taxpayers can be paid back for the extraordinary financial

assistance given to AIG."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, deny, except to admit that this is an accurate quotation of a portion of the

prepared statement of the trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust submitted to the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives.

105. During congressional testimony, the Trustees stated, "As representatives of

the majority shareholder-the U.S. Treasury-we have pursued and will continue to pursue

our obligation with the utmost vigor and in the public interest."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

- 29 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1811 Filed 04/26/10 Page 29 of 49
response is required, deny, except to admit that this is an accurate quotation of a portion of the

prepared statement of the trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust submitted to the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives.

106. During congressional testimony, the Trustees stated, "In defining our role as

Trustees, we recognize that other agencies and instrumentalities of the government have

significant roles in AIG's future-especially the Federal Reserve and the Treasury

Department. Each is involved in issues that range from AIG's financial performance and

evolving restructuring plans to its compensation policies and corporate governance, risk

management and control practices."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, deny, except to admit that this is an accurate quotation of a portion of the

prepared statement of the trustees of the AIG Credit Facility Trust before the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives.

107. The Trustees testified truthfully before Congress with regard to the above

joint statement and testimony.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, compound, and as seeking

irrelevant information.

108. AIG employs consolidated financing; all of its funds are fungible and they

flow down to business units and subsidiaries through a single port.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking a legal conclusion. 

To the extent a response is required, deny.

109. All funds appropriated by Congress pursuant to the Act that go to AIG are

- 30 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1812 Filed 04/26/10 Page 30 of 49
used to support AIG's financial activities.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking a legal conclusion. 

To the extent a response is required, deny.

110. AIG engages in Shariah-compliant financing, which subjects certain

financial activities, including investments, to the dictates of Islamic law and the Islamic

religion.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Furthermore,

Defendant objects to this request as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant states that, after a reasonable inquiry, it is unable to admit or deny, except that

Defendant admits that certain subsidiaries of AIG offer or have offered insurance products that

are marketed as Shariah-compliant.

111. Shariah-compliant financing is an Islamic religious activity.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Furthermore,

Defendant objects to this request as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

112. Shariah-complaint financing is financing that comports with Islamic law.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Furthermore,

Defendant objects to this request as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

113. Islamic law is a central part of the Islamic religion.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Furthermore,

- 31 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1813 Filed 04/26/10 Page 31 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

114. Islamic law is most often referred to as Shariah.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Furthermore,

Defendant objects to this request as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

115. An example of Shariah-compliant financing offered by AIG is Takaful.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative. Furthermore,

Defendant objects to this request as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the

application of law to fact, or opinions about either. To the extent a response is required,

Defendant states that, after a reasonable inquiry, it is unable to admit or deny, except that

Defendant admits that certain subsidiaries of AIG offer or have offered insurance products that

are marketed as Takaful.

116. According to AIG, Takaful is "[i]nsurance that avoids prohibited elements in

accordance with the Sharia law."

Deny, except to admit that this is a substantially accurate quotation of text from a website,

which Defendant is no longer able to locate on the world wide web, of a subsidiary of AIG that is

based in Bahrain.

117. According to AIG, its Takaful products are Islamic because, inter alia, AIG

"do[es] not invest in anything that is haram" and it "do[es] not borrow, lend or enter into

any financial transaction that is unIslamic."

Deny, except to admit that this is a substantially accurate quotation of text from a website,

- 32 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1814 Filed 04/26/10 Page 32 of 49
which Defendant is no longer able to locate on the world wide web, of a subsidiary of AIG that is

based in Bahrain.

118. According to AIG, "haram" is "[p]rohibited elements in Islam according to

Sharia."

Deny, except to admit that this is a substantially accurate quotation of text from a website,

which Defendant is no longer able to locate on the world wide web, of a subsidiary of AIG that is

based in Bahrain.

119. The Takaful insurance business of AIG is pervasively sectarian.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking a legal conclusion. To the extent a response

is required, deny.

120. The secular purposes of AIG's Takaful insurance business and its

Shariah-based Islamic religious mission are inextricably intertwined.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as based on a false premise, and as

seeking a legal conclusion. To the extent a response is required, deny.

121. According to AIG, it is "expanding its scope and vision to global proportions

providing a range of Takaful products, including property & casualty, energy, accident &

health, financial lines, motor, [and] personal contents just to name a few. The phenomenal

growth of the Takaful market is something that [AIG] as a market leader recognize[s]."

Deny, except to admit that, with the exception of the bracketed material, this is a

substantially accurate quotation of text from a website, which Defendant is no longer able to

locate on the world wide web, of a subsidiary of AIG that is based in Bahrain. 

122. AIG's Sharia-compliant financing "benefit[s] from AIG's disciplined global

- 33 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1815 Filed 04/26/10 Page 33 of 49
underwriting and standards and 89 years of experience in delivering innovative insurance

solutions to the international community through a network that currently spans more

than 130 countries and jurisdictions, reaching 74 million customers."

Defendant objects to this request as vague, especially with respect to the meaning of the

term “benefits.” To the extent a response is required, Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is

unable to admit or deny.

123. AIG has a "global expansion strategy" for its Sharia-compliant financing,

seeking to expand its products to non-Muslims.

Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny.

124. In December 2008, AIG publicly announced that it has introduced "a series

of Shari'ah compliant (Takaful) product offerings in the U.S."

Deny.

125. In December 2008, AIG publicly stated that its "newly announced Takaful

products are compliant with key Islamic finance tenets."

Admit.

126. In December 2008, AIG publicly stated, "The introduction of Takaful

products in the U.S. represents an important and emerging growth opportunity for AIG

Commercial Insurance."

Defendant admits only that this is an accurate quotation of a statement contained in a

press release issued by AIG in December 2008 attributed to Matthew F. Power, who served as

President, Risk Specialists Companies, Inc. at the time.

127. Citing Ernst & Young's 2008 World Takaful Report, in December 2008, AIG

- 34 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1816 Filed 04/26/10 Page 34 of 49
publicly stated that "Takaful was estimated to be a $5.7 billion market globally with over

130 providers in 2006. The Takaful market is estimated to be in excess of $10 billion by

2010."

Admit.

128. AIG publicly stated that its efforts to market Shariah-compliant insurance

products globally, including in the United States, to non-Muslims is a way to "introduce[]

them to a new way of life."

Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny.

129. AIG's Shariah-compliant financing is benefitting from federal taxpayer

funds.

Deny.

130. Shariah is considered by Islamic religious authorities to be the divine law of

Allah which is articulated directly to man through the Quran and indirectly through the

canonical stories of Mohammed's life as told through the Sunna.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

131. AIG describes "Sharia" as "Islamic law based on Quran and the teachings of

the Prophet (PBUH)."

Deny, except to admit that this is a substantially accurate quotation of text from a website,

which Defendant is no longer able to locate on the world wide web, of a subsidiary of AIG that is

based in Bahrain.

132. The "teachings of the Prophet" referred to by AIG are a reference to the

- 35 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1817 Filed 04/26/10 Page 35 of 49
canonized Sunna.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. To the extent a response is required, Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry,

is unable to admit or deny.

133. The Quran is considered by Islam to be the perfect expression of Allah's will

for man.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

134. Every word of the Quran is considered by Islam to be perfect and

unalterable except and unless altered by some subsequent word of Allah.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

135. The Sunna-stories of Mohammed's life and behavior-are considered by Islam

to be binding authority of how a Muslim must live.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

136. Islam holds that Allah is the sole true sovereign; he revealed to Mohammed

all matters of life, politics, and religious law.

- 36 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1818 Filed 04/26/10 Page 36 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

137. The religion of Islam regulates life completely, from the social and the

political to the diplomatic, economic, and military.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

138. The combination of religion and politics as one is the foundation of Islam, an

inseparable political/religious doctrine of Islamic governments, and the basis of Muslim

loyalties.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

139. Two international authorities of Shariah-compliant finance, Mervyn K.

Lewis, a professor of finance in Australia, and Latifa M. Algaoud, a senior official in the

Bahrain Ministry of Finance, in their collaborative work, Islamic Banking, explained

Islamic law as follows:

Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human

lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest

to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and

religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution [sic] matters,

as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the

concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such

thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state

- 37 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1819 Filed 04/26/10 Page 37 of 49
are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a

religious entity established under divine law.

Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny.

140. In Shariah-based Islam's view, the world and mankind are divided into two

irreconcilable groups: Dar Al Islam, the house of Islam, which is made up of adherents to

Islam and where Islamic law rules; and Dar Al Harb, the house of war, which is made up

of nonadherents and where "infidels" (known as kuffars, or nonbelievers) live.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

141. According to Shariah-based Islam, Christians and Jews are considered

"infidels."

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

142. According to Shariah-based Islam, atheists are considered "infidels."

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

143. According to Shariah-based Islamic teaching, all people will one day accept

Islam or submit to its rule.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

- 38 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1820 Filed 04/26/10 Page 38 of 49
and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

144. The Quran commands, "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit

to Allah." (Quran 8:39).

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information, and as seeking to

establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about

either. 

145. Jihad is a component of the theo-political doctrine of Shariah.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

146. Jihad is considered a communal religious duty for all Muslims throughout

the world.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

147. The Quran informs its followers that there is always a holy war being waged

and instructs them to participate.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

148. The Quran sura 9:29 commands adherents of Islam to "fight against those

- 39 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1821 Filed 04/26/10 Page 39 of 49
who do not believe in God or the judgment day, who permit what God and his messenger

have forbidden, and who refuse allegiance to the true faith."

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information, and as seeking to

establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about

either.

149. The Quran sura 9:29 is codified as normative law among all extant schools of

Islamic jurisprudence.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

150. The objective of jihad is not only to convert people to Islam, but also to gain

political control and exercise Islamic authority over a population so that society lives and

abides by the principles of Islam.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

151. Compliance with Shariah with regard to war, politics, or financial matters is

achieved by having a Shariah authority issue a fatwa or legal ruling which mandates a

certain behavior or in the case of Shariah-compliant finance, approves the particular

investment or type of financial transaction.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

- 40 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1822 Filed 04/26/10 Page 40 of 49
opinions about either. 

152. The role of the Shariah authorities is central to all Shariah adherents.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either. 

153. Professors Frank Vogel and Samuel Hayes, two of the leading experts and

proponents of Shariah-compliant finance, explained the role of Shariah authorities as

follows:

Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next,

church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual

conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars

alone are capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are

expected to seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in

doubt; if they follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the

opinion is in error.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny.

154. AIG employs a "Shariah Supervisory Committee," which is comprised of the

following members: Sheikh Nizam Yaquby from Bahrain, Dr. Mohammed Ali Elgari from

Saudi Arabia, and Dr. Muhammed Imran Ashraf Usmani from Pakistan.

Deny, except to admit that according to an unsworn affidavit provided by AIG attached to

Plaintiff’s second subpoena of AIG, these individuals have been contracted to serve as an

External Sharia Advisory Board for the Bahraini corporation, CHARTIS Takaful-Enaya B.S.C.

(c), which is a subsidiary of Chartis Overseas Limited, which is a subsidiary of Chartis

International, LLC, which is a subsidiary of AIG.

- 41 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1823 Filed 04/26/10 Page 41 of 49
155. Dr. Usmani is the son, student, and dedicated disciple of Mufti Taqi Usmani,

who is a leading Shariah authority for Shariah-compliant finance in the world.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking irrelevant

information. To the extent a response is required, Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is

unable to admit or deny.

156. Mufta Taqi Usmani is the author of a book translated into English in 1999

that includes an entire chapter dedicated to explaining why a Western Muslim must engage

in violent jihad against his own country or government.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny.

157. The role of AIG's Shariah authority "is to review our operations, supervise

its development of Islamic products, and determine Shariah compliance of these products

and our investments."

Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny, except to admit that this

is a substantially accurate quotation of text from a website, which Defendant is no longer able to

locate on the world wide web, of a subsidiary of AIG that is based in Bahrain.

158. Shariah compliance in financing is achieved by the avoidance of interest, risk

(typically understood as uncertainty or speculation), and certain types of prohibited

industries (relating to activities considered haram or "forbidden," such as the pork and

alcohol-beverage industries, pornography, gambling, interest-based financing, and

industries supporting the United States military).

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

- 42 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1824 Filed 04/26/10 Page 42 of 49
theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

159. According to AIG, its Shariah-compliant businesses do not enter into any

financial transaction that is "unIslamic."

Defendant, after a reasonable inquiry, is unable to admit or deny, except to admit that a

website, which Defendant is no longer able to locate on the world wide web, of a Bahrainian

subsidiary of AIG stated that its products are takaful because, inter alia, they do not enter into

any financial transaction that is “unIslamic.”

160. Shariah compliance includes a focus on "purification."

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

161. One element of Shariah-compliance "purification" is a form of obligatory

charitable contribution called zakat, which is considered a spiritual purification.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

162. Under Shariah law, Zakah (sometimes referred to as zakat), which literally

means purification, is a form of religious tax for assisting, inter alia, those that "struggle

[jihad] for Allah."

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

163. Under Shariah law, the amount of the zakat is between 2.5% and 20%,

depending upon the source of the wealth.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

- 43 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1825 Filed 04/26/10 Page 43 of 49
theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

164. The zakat religious tax is used to financially support Islamic "charities."

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either.

165. The zakat religious tax cannot be used to support Christian or Jewish

charities.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either.

166. A Catholic charity is not qualified to receive a zakat religious tax because

Catholicism is considered kufr or idol worship, which is a "crime" under Islamic law.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either.

167. Another "purification" element of Shariah-compliance is the purification of

a Shariah compliant investment or financial transaction that has been tainted with

forbidden revenue, whether from interest, illicit speculation, or a forbidden commercial

enterprise, such as the pork industry or an industry that supports the United States

military.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

- 44 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1826 Filed 04/26/10 Page 44 of 49
opinions about either.

168. In this latter meaning of "purification" described above, the forbidden funds

must be disgorged by donating the money to an acceptable Islamic "charity," but this

charitable donation will not count toward a Muslim investor's zakat requirement.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, as seeking irrelevant information,

and as seeking to establish a theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or

opinions about either.

169. Shariah compliance requires adherence to Islamic law.

Defendant objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, and as seeking to establish a

theological proposition, not fact, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either.

170. In November 2008, U.S. Department of Treasury sponsored "Islamic Finance

101," which was a "forum" for the staffs from U.S. banking regulatory agencies, Congress,

the U.S. Department of Treasury, and other parts of the Executive Branch that was

conducted in association with the Islamic Finance Project from Harvard Law School.

Admit.

171. The Islamic Finance 101 forum was directed toward government policy

makers.

Admit.

172. The Islamic Finance 101 forum discussed Shariah-compliant financial

products.

Admit.

173. The Islamic Finance 101 forum discussed Shariah-complaint financial

- 45 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1827 Filed 04/26/10 Page 45 of 49
products in a positive light.

Defendant objects to this request as the meaning of “positive” is vague, ambiguous, and

argumentative, and to the assumption that a “forum,” rather than individuals participating in a

forum, can discuss a topic. To the extent a response is required, deny.

174. During the Islamic Finance 101 forum, no government official publicly

expressed concern about the fact that AIG engages in Shariah-compliant business

activities.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative and as based on an unsubstantiated

premise, that any government official was even aware that certain foreign subsidiaries of AIG

offered Shariah-compliant insurance products. To the extent a response is required, Defendant,

after a reasonable inquiry, can neither admit nor deny this request because no transcript of the

forum’s proceedings exists. 

175. AIG's liquidity crisis in September 2008 was a result of the threat of a

material credit rating downgrade.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information, as argumentative, and,

as vague, especially with respect to the time frame, the term “threat,” the term “result,” and the

term “material.” To the extent a response is required, deny, except to admit that actual credit

ratings downgrades contributed to AIG’s liquidity shortage in September 2008.

176. The threatened AIG credit rating downgrade in September 2008 related

directly to AIG's liquidity crisis which in turn was related directly to the amount of debt

accumulating on AIG's balance sheet as a result of demands by creditors (e.g.,

counterparties).

- 46 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1828 Filed 04/26/10 Page 46 of 49
Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information, as ambiguous and

argumentative, confusing, and based on false premises. To the extent a response is required,

deny.

177. At the time of the creation of the Credit Facility, then FRBNY President

Geithner knew that adding up to $85 billion of debt to AIG's balance sheet would create

further pressures for a credit rating downgrade in a matter of weeks.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, deny.

178. At the time of the creation of the Credit Facility, then U.S. Department of

Treasury Secretary Paulson knew that adding up to $85 billion of debt to AIG's balance

sheet would create further pressures for a credit rating downgrade in a matter of weeks.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information. To the extent a

response is required, deny.

179. At the time of the creation of the Credit Facility, then U.S. Department of

Treasury Secretary Paulson contemplated a subsequent equity infusion from the

Government to pay down AIG's debt.

Deny.

180. At the time of the creation of the Credit Facility, the Fed, through the

FRBNY, was able to buy AIG-held securities or assets through loans to off-balance sheet

special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") such as Maiden Lane II and III, which provided AIG

liquidity without adding debt to AIG's balance sheet.

Defendant objects to this request as argumentative, as seeking irrelevant information and

- 47 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1829 Filed 04/26/10 Page 47 of 49
as seeking a legal conclusion.

181. The Credit Facility Trust is invalid.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

182. The Credit Facility Trust is illegal.

Defendant objects to this request as seeking irrelevant information and as seeking a legal

conclusion.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 26, 2010 TONY WEST

Assistant Attorney General

BARBARA L. MCQUADE

United States Attorney

JOHN R. GRIFFITHS

Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch

s/ John R. Coleman 

JOHN R. COLEMAN

JULIE STRAUS

Trial Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 6118

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone: (202) 514-4505

Email: John.Coleman3@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

- 48 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1830 Filed 04/26/10 Page 48 of 49
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 26, 2010, I caused to be served a copy of the foregoing

paper upon Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi, counsel for plaintiff in this action, by email

per stipulation and agreement of the parties.

/s/ John R. Coleman 

John R. Coleman

Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

- 49 -

Case 2:08-cv-15147-LPZ-MKM ECF No. 50-1, PageID.1831 Filed 04/26/10 Page 49 of 49