In the world of high finance, taking on AIG is like swinging at a heavyweight.
So suing the giant probably takes some gumption, but Richmond-based Scott & Stringfellow wants its day in court.
The local investment banking firm alleged in a suit filed in federal court Nov. 10 that AIG’s Commercial Equipment Finance arm has refused to pay Scott & Stringfellow for a deal it helped close in October.
The suit did not specifically state how much S&S believes it is owed. The suit only said the sum “exceeds $75,000 many times over” and that their services “resulted in a transaction that yielded AIG a large sum of money.”
Scott & Stringfellow isn’t going into the fight alone. Parent BB&T has its back.
S&S filed suit on counts including breach of contract, quantum meruit, and implied contract and unjust enrichment.
AIG hired S&S in April 2009 to help sell of a portfolio made up of municipal securities, municipal loans and other assets that weren’t specifically described in the suit.
The two agreed that AIG would pay S&S 1 percent of the assets sold upon securitization of the portfolio. But the contract between the two parties didn’t specifically lay out how compensation for a non-securitized sale would be handled. And sure enough, the portfolio sold in October through a deal that didn’t involved securitization.
Long story short, S&S believes it is entitled to 3 percent of said assets, a percentage which it says in the suit is “the usual and customary compensation in the business for these services.”
And S&S is still waiting for its money.
“AIG has not paid Scott & Stringfellow the compensation due and owing, and has repudiated any obligation to pay Scott & Stringfellow compensation for services rendered,” S&S said in its suit.
S&S President and CEO Walter Robertson would not comment on the case, only saying that the lawsuit speaks for itself.
AIG spokesman Mark Herr said the company declined to comment on the case. AIG Commercial Equipment Finance maintains a local registered agent office at 11 S. 12th St.
Timothy St. Geroge, an attorney with Troutman Sanders representing S&S, said he wasn’t at liberty to comment. He did say AIG’s response to the suit is due next month.
Michael Schwartz is a BizSense reporter. Please send news tips to [email protected].
In the world of high finance, taking on AIG is like swinging at a heavyweight.
So suing the giant probably takes some gumption, but Richmond-based Scott & Stringfellow wants its day in court.
The local investment banking firm alleged in a suit filed in federal court Nov. 10 that AIG’s Commercial Equipment Finance arm has refused to pay Scott & Stringfellow for a deal it helped close in October.
The suit did not specifically state how much S&S believes it is owed. The suit only said the sum “exceeds $75,000 many times over” and that their services “resulted in a transaction that yielded AIG a large sum of money.”
Scott & Stringfellow isn’t going into the fight alone. Parent BB&T has its back.
S&S filed suit on counts including breach of contract, quantum meruit, and implied contract and unjust enrichment.
AIG hired S&S in April 2009 to help sell of a portfolio made up of municipal securities, municipal loans and other assets that weren’t specifically described in the suit.
The two agreed that AIG would pay S&S 1 percent of the assets sold upon securitization of the portfolio. But the contract between the two parties didn’t specifically lay out how compensation for a non-securitized sale would be handled. And sure enough, the portfolio sold in October through a deal that didn’t involved securitization.
Long story short, S&S believes it is entitled to 3 percent of said assets, a percentage which it says in the suit is “the usual and customary compensation in the business for these services.”
And S&S is still waiting for its money.
“AIG has not paid Scott & Stringfellow the compensation due and owing, and has repudiated any obligation to pay Scott & Stringfellow compensation for services rendered,” S&S said in its suit.
S&S President and CEO Walter Robertson would not comment on the case, only saying that the lawsuit speaks for itself.
AIG spokesman Mark Herr said the company declined to comment on the case. AIG Commercial Equipment Finance maintains a local registered agent office at 11 S. 12th St.
Timothy St. Geroge, an attorney with Troutman Sanders representing S&S, said he wasn’t at liberty to comment. He did say AIG’s response to the suit is due next month.
Michael Schwartz is a BizSense reporter. Please send news tips to [email protected].