Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

To the Editor:

Re “418 Got A.I.G. Bonuses; Outcry Grows in Capital” (front page, March 18):

As a retired lawyer, closely following the repeated references to the legal obstacles making it “impossible” to recover the bonuses (or “retention payments”) paid out to top executives and employees of the American International Group who, in fact, seem to have been responsible for the losses incurred and that necessitated a United States taxpayer bailout, I keep searching in vain for a reference to a basic legal theory: unjust enrichment.

Can someone explain why that theory, and that cause of action, could not be invoked to recover totally unjustified payments made to people who not only did nothing to deserve or “earn” those payments, but who also contributed to the losses for which they are now holding the fruits of their failure?

I can’t imagine a more unjust enrichment. What am I missing?

David Griff
Tarrytown, N.Y., March 18, 2009