But AIG, in its filing Wednesday, argued that the proposed class covered so many different time periods, so many different sets of circumstances prior to its bailout and so many different kinds of financial interests that it was impossible to say such a broad class had anything in common.
“(Given) the varied market conditions and disclosures, the diverse characteristics of the securities and the disparate interests of investors, Lead Plaintiff has not come close to carrying its heavy burden” to provide such proof, AIG said.
In a separate memorandum of law, the banks — all underwriters on various AIG offerings over the period in question — also argued that they do not have a sufficient amount in common to be sued as a class.
“These issues and defenses must be addressed offering by offering, underwriter by underwriter,” they said.
Accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers , which was AIG’s independent auditor, also filed a memo opposing class claims against it, saying the plaintiffs had no claim because various disclosures by PwC about AIG’s finances were not material to bond investors.
The suit, which predates AIG’s bailout, was filed in late May 2008.