Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Sure. We'll all be waiting with baited breath to see what she does. God willing she won't be able to resist grabbing a hold that tar baby in Florida.

---

I will be interesting to watch. I personally will be VERY surprised if she pursues assets outside New York OR assets held jointly with persons or entities that are not judgment debtors.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

* * *

Okay I read the actual ruling again. Engoron found that Trump allegedly gave phony wealth claims were critical to his success, affording him lower loan interest rates and allowing him to build projects he wouldn't have otherwise been able to finish. The judge determined that those savings and windfall profits were "ill-gotten gains" and ordered him and his co-defendants (Don Jr and Eric) to cough them up to the state, with interest. So in addition to the $355 million penalty, which was the calculated profit the Trumps made, he ordered them to payback of what the judge deemed "ill-gotten gains" from his spurious financial statements, Trump is required to pay interest on that amount at an annual rate of 9%, as prescribed by New York law, so that adds up fast. James' office calculates that, to date, Trump owes an additional $98.6 million in interest, bringing his total penalty to $453.5 million. The interest will keep accruing until Trump pays.

* * *

---

Didn't every bank testify this didn't happen?

---

Not sure if every bank did, but the state's own witness from Deutsche Bank testified that the State's claim that Trump received favorable rates was absolutely false. And certainly none of the banks testified that the State's claim was true.

Trump unable to get $464M appeal bond, lawyers say | Fox News

Former President Trump has not been able to secure a $464 million appeal bond he needs following a New York civil fraud judgment against him, his attorneys say.

In a court filing Monday, his lawyers said obtaining one is a "practical impossibility under the circumstances presented."

It's a BS ruiing and garbage that the Court won't give relief given he can bond a great portion of it.

But where is the sock that claimed Elon was going to pay this? Banned or new name?

And if it were George Soros or Hillary Clinton with this garbage ruling against them, you'd be screaming to high heaven about injustice and needing to add new justices to any and all courts available!

People has explained in detail the problems with this ruling. Save the high horse for a different thread.

Im Gipper said:

---

It's a BS ruling and garbage that the Court won't give relief given he can bond a great portion of it.

---

Given that the plaintiff was the State of New York, you would THINK they could be a bit creative about securing the Judgment during appeal. Maybe an injunction against Trump selling or encumbering any existing assets during the pendency of the appeal. Unfortunately, New York law does not seem to provide that flexibility.

Quote:

---

But where is the sock that claimed Elon was going to pay this? Banned or new name?

---

It was stupid, but I don't see why it would get anyone banned.

We had a dozen or more posters insisting that all Trump's rich friends would gladly step forward and cover the bond for him.

Quote:

---

Maybe an injunction against Trump selling or encumbering any existing assets during the pendency of the appeal. Unfortunately, New York law does not seem to provide that flexibility.

---

Guess you missed the part about Engeron assigning a financial nanny over Trump's companies who must approve all such actions?

Gee, maybe that person has drawn a line in the sand and the bonding companies are not willing to cross it? Not saying that this happened here but given the structure imposed by the court, not an unreasonable question.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe an injunction against Trump selling or encumbering any existing assets during the pendency of the appeal. Unfortunately, New York law does not seem to provide that flexibility.

---

Guess you missed the part about Engeron assigning a financial nanny over Trump's companies who must approve all such actions?

Gee, maybe that person has drawn a line in the sand and the bonding companies are not willing to cross it? Not saying that this happened here but given the structure imposed by the court, not an unreasonable question.

---

You know this, but others may not.

The "nanny" is related to the substantive enforcement proceeding against Trump for (to paraphrase) fraudulent business practices. It is unrelated to the appellate issue. To simplify a bit, the court appointed a "nanny" to prevent him from engaging in MORE "fraudulent business practices," REGARDLESS of any appeal.

My point is that something LIKE the "nanny" would probably be adequate to provide the judgment creditor (here, the state of New York) with adequate assurance of the collectability of the judgment. The competing consideration is that OTHER claims against Trump might arise and lead to judgments (and execution thereon) that would weaken that position.

My response (surreply?) is that (should such claims/judgments arise) there would be plenty of time for THIS judgment creditor to seek a revision of the arrangement.

In other words, I am arguing that it would be theoretically POSSIBLE to protect the interests of both Trump (as appellant) and the state (as judgment creditor) without EITHER seizure of assets OR a formal surety bond, but that New York law does not appear to provide that flexibility.

Quote:

---

Trump's attorneys claimed they have spent "countless hours negotiating with one of the largest insurance companies in the world," and have also unsuccessfully asked 30 other companies to back the bond.

---

World's insurers and re-insurers decide that Trump is too radioactive to do business with.

Your money is no good here. Political redlining.

Sanctioned like a political dissident. About to have his assets seized like a Russian oligarch..

The juice just ain't worth the squeeze, and the stain of being cast as allied with Donald Trump is a wound that well never heal.

Trump is toxic in the world of global finance, and also toxic when it comes to the few top legal experts who are competent to handle a case(s) of this magnitude.

The world most well known real-estate billionaire cast out of the emerald city and forced to set up camp in a sundown town.

First quarter of 2024 exceeds all expectations. More to come.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump's attorneys claimed they have spent "countless hours negotiating with one of the largest insurance companies in the world," and have also unsuccessfully asked 30 other companies to back the bond.

---

World's insurers and re-insurers decide that Trump is too radioactive to do business with.

Your money is no good here. Political redlining.

Sanctioned like a political dissident. About to have his assets seized like a Russian oligarch..

The juice just ain't worth the squeeze, and the stain of being cast as allied with Donald Trump is a wound that well never heal.

Trump is toxic in the world of global finance, and also toxic when it comes to the few top legal experts who are competent to handle a case(s) of this magnitude.

The world most well known real-estate billionaire cast out of the emerald city and forced to set up camp in a sundown town.

First quarter of 2024 exceeds all expectations. More to come.

---

Or MAYBE he does not have the net worth that he keeps telling you. MAYBE his assets do not have the values that he claims. MAYBE he is leveraged up to his eyeballs, and the big financial companies are ... less than confident ... that they will be repaid, if called on a surety bond.

Or maybe the ENTIRE financial sector has just decided to persecute him.

=======

There is a BIG difference between loaning the man $75mm on a $100mm piece of real property and promising to pay $500mm on his behalf, secured ONLY by his equity in the assets that he already owns.

There were allegations that Trump was trying to move ownership of the assets to Florida to make it very difficult or impossible for New York to take them.

I wonder how that impacts getting a bond. If I had a bonding company, I sure wouldn't want my customers moving their collateral somewhere that I couldn't take it if if they refused to pay the bond and I had to pay it for them.

Sounds like ol Tump is back to being both rich and poor at the same time.

He's wealth fluid. Trump's wealth is on a spectrum depending on the circumstances.

He's Scrooge McDuck diving into a pool of gold coins when he was allegedly fleecing America, selling state secrets to the Russians, and using the office of the presidency to enrich himself and his family;

But now he's threadbare to the point that no bank or insurance company will touch him.

eric76 said:

---

There were allegations that Trump was trying to move ownership of the assets to Florida to make it very difficult or impossible for New York to take them.

I wonder how that impacts getting a bond. If I had a bonding company, I sure wouldn't want my customers moving their collateral somewhere that I couldn't take it if if they refused to pay the bond and I had to pay it for them.

---

I tend to discount that as much of an issue.

The financial companies able to provide a bond of this magnitude are probably going to want collateral in the form of real property, and it is a bit difficult for him to move a piece of real property to Florida

They may be speculating that he is attempting to "move" the legal home of the entities that own the real property, but the location of that "legal home" is irrelevant in this discussion.

Lot's of people who know nothing of either the law or "high finance" are voicing lots of opinions regarding this appellate bond. I wouldn't waste much time trying to understand their "points."

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump's attorneys claimed they have spent "countless hours negotiating with one of the largest insurance companies in the world," and have also unsuccessfully asked 30 other companies to back the bond.

---

World's insurers and re-insurers decide that Trump is too radioactive to do business with.

Your money is no good here. Political redlining.

Sanctioned like a political dissident. About to have his assets seized like a Russian oligarch..

The juice just ain't worth the squeeze, and the stain of being cast as allied with Donald Trump is a wound that well never heal.

Trump is toxic in the world of global finance, and also toxic when it comes to the few top legal experts who are competent to handle a case(s) of this magnitude.

The world most well known real-estate billionaire cast out of the emerald city and forced to set up camp in a sundown town.

First quarter of 2024 exceeds all expectations. More to come.

---

More likely, it is a business decision based on solid economic grounds, not some conspiracy theory.

If you were a bonding company, would you be willing to bond someone who is trying to move the assets serving as collateral to another state?

From what I've read, bonding company really hate accepting property as collateral anyway.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There were allegations that Trump was trying to move ownership of the assets to Florida to make it very difficult or impossible for New York to take them.

I wonder how that impacts getting a bond. If I had a bonding company, I sure wouldn't want my customers moving their collateral somewhere that I couldn't take it if if they refused to pay the bond and I had to pay it for them.

---

I tend to discount that as much of an issue.

The financial companies able to provide a bond of this magnitude are probably going to want collateral in the form of real property, and it is a bit difficult for him to move a piece of real property to Florida.

---

Even if the real property is transferred to a related, but separate entity in another state?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Did Letitia consider the possibility that Donald Trump may well have every single asset he owns fully topped up?

---

Now we meet coming back the other direction from what was pointed out earlier.

If I was a bonding company in New York, there's no way I would do anything that would appear to be helping Trump. After seeing how much they've taken from him I wouldn't want my business anywhere near him. I wouldn't want to be the next target.

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There were allegations that Trump was trying to move ownership of the assets to Florida to make it very difficult or impossible for New York to take them.

I wonder how that impacts getting a bond. If I had a bonding company, I sure wouldn't want my customers moving their collateral somewhere that I couldn't take it if if they refused to pay the bond and I had to pay it for them.

---

I tend to discount that as much of an issue.

The financial companies able to provide a bond of this magnitude are probably going to want collateral in the form of real property, and it is a bit difficult for him to move a piece of real property to Florida.

---

Even if the real property is transferred to a related, but separate entity in another state?

---

Simple analogy.

You take a mortgage to purchase a lake house. The bank files its Deed of Trust. You then move from Texas to Oklahoma and sign a deed transferring ownership of the lake house to your wife.

The bank won't "like" your behavior, and it probably violates a dozen terms of your loan documents, but the bank still has the DoT and can foreclose on the lake house.

RogerFurlong said:

---

If I was a bonding company in New York, there's no way I would do anything that would appear to be helping Trump. After seeing how much they've taken from him I wouldn't want my business anywhere near him. I wouldn't want to be the next target.

---

Makes perfect sense but there's quite a bit of gnashing at this issue going on in the peanut gallery.

Anybody in position to write this bond ain't gonna piss in their own rice bowl on account of Trump.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Anybody in position to write this bond ain't gonna piss in their own rice bowl on account of Trump.

---

Trumpists were saying EXACTLY the same thing, two weeks ago (and then Chubb provided surety for the Carroll appeal).

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Anybody in position to write this bond ain't gonna piss in their own rice bowl on account of Trump.

---

Trumpists were saying EXACTLY the same thing, two weeks ago (and then Chubb provided surety for the Carroll appeal).

---

And then they had to write a letter explaining their decision to stock holders. Who wants to deal with that headache of pissing off the state (Who probably wants to take Trump tower from him) and their stakeholders?

RogerFurlong said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Anybody in position to write this bond ain't gonna piss in their own rice bowl on account of Trump.

---

Trumpists were saying EXACTLY the same thing, two weeks ago (and then Chubb provided surety for the Carroll appeal).

---

And then they had to write a letter explaining their decision to stock holders. Who wants to deal with that headache of pissing off the state (Who probably wants to take Trump tower from him) and their stakeholders?

---

Did you READ that letter?

Basically, it said "We had a chance to make a lot of money and did so. Would do it again. Have a nice day."

Quote:

---

"We had a chance to make a lot of money and did so. Would do it again. Have a nice day."

---

So why aren't they doing it again then?

Trump's money not green?

But why did they write the letter?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

"We had a chance to make a lot of money and did so. Would do it again. Have a nice day."

---

So why aren't they doing it again then?

Trump's money not green?

---

I outlined the possibilities earlier this afternoon.

My best guess is that he is highly-leveraged and that they are not confident of repayment on such a large obligation ... at least not without a LOT of risk that they do not want to assume. The $88mm surety of the Carroll appeal may well have "used up" all the readily-available equity.

Again, there is a BIG difference between (i) making a $75mm loan on a $100mm property (or making a $88mm guarantee, secured by adequate collateral) and (ii) providing a $500mm surety, secured by equity in dozens of properties with complex ownership schemes (no derogation in the term "scheme" intended).

If Trump cannot find a surety, it will have been a financial decision, not some political statement.

RogerFurlong said:

---

But why did they write the letter?

---

Because Chubb is a publicly-traded company and some shareholders were unhappy?

Look, you people are utterly convinced that the entire world is "out to get" Trump, and nothing anyone can say or show you will change your minds. The level of martyrdom is truly impressive. It is what it is.

Antoninus said:

---

RogerFurlong said:

---

But why did they write the letter?

---

Because Chubb is a publicly-traded company?

Look, you people are utterly convinced that the entire world is "out to get" Trump, and nothing anyone can say or show you will change your minds. It is what it is.

---

So they send this letter after every bond or just this one? Why?

Quote:

---

Look, you people are utterly convinced that the entire world is "out to get" Trump, and nothing anyone can say or show you will change your minds.

---

And?

guess he needs to sell two more Mar-a Lagos to make you happy.

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

There were allegations that Trump was trying to move ownership of the assets to Florida to make it very difficult or impossible for New York to take them.

I wonder how that impacts getting a bond. If I had a bonding company, I sure wouldn't want my customers moving their collateral somewhere that I couldn't take it if if they refused to pay the bond and I had to pay it for them.

---

I tend to discount that as much of an issue.

The financial companies able to provide a bond of this magnitude are probably going to want collateral in the form of real property, and it is a bit difficult for him to move a piece of real property to Florida.

---

Even if the real property is transferred to a related, but separate entity in another state?

---

Simple analogy.

You take a mortgage to purchase a lake house. The bank files its Deed of Trust. You then move from Texas to Oklahoma and sign a deed transferring ownership of the lake house to your wife.

The bank won't "like" your behavior, and it probably violates a dozen terms of your loan documents, but the bank still has the DoT and can foreclose on the lake house.

---

That makes sense.

What I read about it indicated that it would not be at all easy to pull off.

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

"We had a chance to make a lot of money and did so. Would do it again. Have a nice day."

---

So why aren't they doing it again then?

Trump's money not green?

---

I outlined the possibilities earlier this afternoon.

My best guess is that he is highly-leveraged and that they are not confident of repayment on such a large obligation ... at least not without a LOT of risk that they do not want to assume. The $88mm surety of the Carroll appeal may well have "used up" all the readily-available equity.

Again, there is a BIG difference between (i) making a $75mm loan on a $100mm property (or making a $88mm guarantee, secured by adequate collateral) and (ii) providing a $500mm surety, secured by equity in dozens of properties with complex ownership schemes (no derogation in the term "scheme" intended).

If Trump cannot find a surety, it will have been a financial decision, not some political statement.

---

A $75 million loan on a $100 million property would put one in the property management business until you could sell it to get your money back. I would be surprised if any bonding company would even want to get into that kind of mess.

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

"We had a chance to make a lot of money and did so. Would do it again. Have a nice day."

---

So why aren't they doing it again then?

Trump's money not green?

---

I outlined the possibilities earlier this afternoon.

My best guess is that he is highly-leveraged and that they are not confident of repayment on such a large obligation ... at least not without a LOT of risk that they do not want to assume. The $88mm surety of the Carroll appeal may well have "used up" all the readily-available equity.

Again, there is a BIG difference between (i) making a $75mm loan on a $100mm property (or making a $88mm guarantee, secured by adequate collateral) and (ii) providing a $500mm surety, secured by equity in dozens of properties with complex ownership schemes (no derogation in the term "scheme" intended).

If Trump cannot find a surety, it will have been a financial decision, not some political statement.

---

A $75 million loan on a $100 million property would put one in the property management business until you could sell it to get your money back. I would be surprised if any bonding company would even want to get into that kind of mess.

---

Apparently I was not clear. I was just giving an example of a reasonable loan, not suggesting that it was an appellate surety.

Is the Truth Social deal dead? Isn't his stock worth 118 million under that deal?

Antoninus said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

"We had a chance to make a lot of money and did so. Would do it again. Have a nice day."

---

So why aren't they doing it again then?

Trump's money not green?

---

I outlined the possibilities earlier this afternoon.

My best guess is that he is highly-leveraged and that they are not confident of repayment on such a large obligation ... at least not without a LOT of risk that they do not want to assume. The $88mm surety of the Carroll appeal may well have "used up" all the readily-available equity.

Again, there is a BIG difference between (i) making a $75mm loan on a $100mm property (or making a $88mm guarantee, secured by adequate collateral) and (ii) providing a $500mm surety, secured by equity in dozens of properties with complex ownership schemes (no derogation in the term "scheme" intended).

If Trump cannot find a surety, it will have been a financial decision, not some political statement.

---

A $75 million loan on a $100 million property would put one in the property management business until you could sell it to get your money back. I would be surprised if any bonding company would even want to get into that kind of mess.

---

Apparently I was not clear. I was just giving an example of a reasonable loan, not suggesting that it was an appellate surety.

---

Ahh.


Thanks.