I don't see that I am wrong Olivant. Ownership and indirect control are certainly not mutually exclusive. It's how a great many publicly traded companies are run. The government owns 80% of AIG.

From the same article

"Three trustees have virtually absolute discretion to run A.I.G. The trust is unbreakable, and the government has no control over the trustees’ actions, so long as their decisions are not contrary to the interests of the government."

"In March, the government began to cordon off A.I.G.’s subsidiaries. Its two main life insurance companies were placed into special-purpose vehicles so the subsidiaries could be seized separately by the government if A.I.G. went into bankruptcy."

In short, AIG is indeed owned by the government. It's a hands off ownership, which is causing further problems IMO. AIG is only "alive" now through the good graces of the Fed and the Treasury.

Here's an interesting piece (not about AIG per se but banks in general) by the economist Joseph Stiglitz, who thinks that the combination of ownership and lack of control is a serious problem for the American taxpayer.

Stiglitz Interview

Again, the Administration has not as of yet anyway suggested that AIG or other financial/insurance companies need to "reopen" contracts or cut salaries or reduce benefits. Quite the opposite. Geithner's latest plan is a new subsidy to the same companies which helped cause many of these problems.