Post New

Outlets are reporting that Trump has "counter-offered" to come up with a $100 million dollar cash bond backed by the existence of his "vast portfolio" of real estate in his New York State civil fraud judgment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-cannot-line-full-...

Per New York State law, a defendant appealing a civil judgement must still come up with a bond for the ENTIRE judgement FIRST in order to appeal it. AND they must continue paying interest on that amount during whatever period of time elapses for the appeal to be resolved.

This "counter-offer" essentially means Trump does not have the $454 million ($355 million for his original penalty plus 9% accrued interest since the inception of the original charges balloons to $454 million). Of course, this also means he doesn't have the $83 million plus interest to post a bond to appeal the E. Jean Carrol civil judgement either. In that case, he's already "counter-offered" to pay a $24 million dollar bond.

Now we will really get to see our two-tiered justice system in action. Wil this tussle between a "rich" defendant and the state court system of New York morph into some national / federal case of "free speech" being impaired by a rich guy running for President suddenly having to divert personal money away from a national campaign to cover personal financial obligations? Will some other bizarre interpretation or completely fabricated theory of law come out of the woodwork to take a rich guy off the hook? Or will the court system stick to long-established practices applied to millions of "little guys" and apply them equally to one "big guy" with a really big mouth?

From a financial standpoint, these counter-offers can be interpreted two ways. One is that Trump simply doesn't understand that rules apply to him, that everything is a negotiation or deal and that he still thinks he can avoid normal processes simply because he's an ex-President. The other is that Trump is likely FAR less wealthy than he has claimed. He is basically saying he's a multi-billionaire who cannot come up with more than $125 million in cash, even though if his legal team had a brain cell among the collective, they knew this financial pressure would be exerted as these civil verdicts started coming in. It's not like Trump only had 30 days' notice to find this money. These cases have been in litigation for MONTHS and were NEVER looking like they would swing in his favor from Day One. And the fraud trial cited a targeted judgement amount up front of $383 million, enough to get any accountant's attention.

Of course, these interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Trump DOES think that everything including crime is negotiable and Trump is likely a barely-billionaire rather than a comfortably set multibillionaire.


WTH

This "counter-offer" essentially means Trump does not have the $454 million ($355 million for his original penalty plus 9% accrued interest since the inception of the original charges balloons to $454 million).

Given the size of the award, though, maybe this is just worth a stab?

The difference in premium between a $100 million and $500 million bond is between $4-12 million - probably shading towards the latter. So even if he had the wealth to support the larger bond (cash for the premium and collateral enough to get the bonder comfortable), it might be worth taking a flyer to see if the judge might accept a smaller amount. Sure, it costs money to have your lawyers spin their wheels - but given that there's probably $10M+ riding on the motion, it's probably worth even a longshot chance that you might get the bond amount reduced.

it's probably worth even a longshot chance that you might get the bond amount reduced.

I like this one. But how does a judge assess this to give him a break? Is it easier just to say no - then is there an appeal for the bond? At some point when do we go into foreclosure? :)

I like this one. But how does a judge assess this to give him a break? Is it easier just to say no - then is there an appeal for the bond? At some point when do we go into foreclosure? :)

Got me. I don't litigate - I don't know whether the judge has any power at all to modify the bond requirement, although they probably could fashion an equivalent remedy using their power to stay enforcement of their orders or some other relief.

Once the 30-day period from the entry of the judgment is up, the state can start seizing assets unless something intervenes - like posting a bond (which protects them from seizure) or an order from some court (either the trial court or the appellate court).

So even if he had the wealth to support the larger bond (cash for the premium and collateral enough to get the bonder comfortable), it might be worth taking a flyer to see if the judge might accept a smaller amount.

-------------

I'm kind of suprised that the difference between a $100 million dollar bond and a $500 million dollar bond is "only" $4 to $12 million dollars, especially for someone with his dodgy financials and track record of incurring more avoidable expenses by shooting off his mouth and worsening his financial picture seemingly by the day.

With any other defendent, who behaved in court, expressed some semblance of remorse or at least NOTHING towards the process and the judge, the economics of this argument make sense and might have a chance.

With THIS defendant, who blatently displayed contempt for the process, the court and the judge in and out of the courtroom, this "counter-offer" comes across as yet more contempt for the judicial system. If I were a rational person in Trump's camp, I would look at this request as posing the possibility of further antagonizing a judge who merely by following the letter of the law could provide no leniency and trigger a complete financial meltdown of Trump's empire.

Of course, if the judge DOES exactly this and exercises no discretionary leniency in this matter, that's exactly what could happen here. It may be the case that Trump literally has nothing to lose because if he is at the point of having to counter-offer a bond requirement, he is already at his financial limit.


WTH

I'm kind of suprised that the difference between a $100 million dollar bond and a $500 million dollar bond is "only" $4 to $12 million dollars, especially for someone with his dodgy financials and track record of incurring more avoidable expenses by shooting off his mouth and worsening his financial picture seemingly by the day.

Well, that's just the premium side. The fee for the bond is typically 1-3% of the face of the bond.

The collateral side would have its own issues. Even if we assume, arguendo, that Trump (or the Trump Org.) has a net worth of several billion dollars, the bulk of it will be in real estate. And nearly all of that real estate will be complicated - there will be mortgage-holders and minority participants and equity partners and leaseholds and a whole host of arrangements that will make it complex for Trump to pledge his equity in those properties to a bonding company, and for the bonding company to get comfortable that in the event Trump loses the appeal and they had to stand behind the bond that they could liquidate the equity into cash.

Competent lawyers can do the due diligence and paper all that, given sufficient time. Their legal team should have been working on that for months now. But there's a cost to doing that as well, and the bonding company is going to discount the collateral based on the risk and brain damage of collecting.

So the $100 million may also be trying to limit this to the portion of his assets that's "easy" to encumber for a bonding company - cash and securities and any assets that he might own in a less complicated structure (ie. little but a mortgage). Stuff that he owns minority stakes in, or that's subject to complicated partnership and other equity structures, might be more difficult to use as collateral.

so 1 new question and 1 old question...

- why does the judge have to even acknowledge a request for an 80% bond discount? so trump can then ask for a 90% discount? so that every re-negotiation allows more delays?

- i still have not seen an estimate of how much trump would be out, on a nonrefundable running total, for ~$0.5B bond.
maybe the court sets an interest rate, but what upfront fee would a neutral 3rd-party take for the risk of having to sue trump and wait 5yrs in court to recover money if the appeal is lost?

as i mentioned earlier, let burford bond it and then take it all as the fees and interest accumulate. they have patience and a well-run delinquency recovery arm. it could easily hit their typical ~25% IRR targets.

why does the judge have to even acknowledge a request for an 80% bond discount? so trump can then ask for a 90% discount? so that every re-negotiation allows more delays?

Theoretically, there's no delays at all. New York is apparently a "no safe days" state, so that the state could theoretically execute the judgment at any time after it's been entered unless a stay has been imposed. A stay is automatically imposed without a hearing if a bond is posted and an appeal filed, so that's a safe harbor for Trump. My understanding is that although the rules of civil procedure don't provide for a delay in executing the judgment, the state has agreed that they won't do it for thirty days to give Trump the same amount of time he would have to secure a bond if this was in federal court.

As for considering the request, the rules of civil procedure also allow a court to enter a stay of the judgement (in whole or in part) pending appeal, separate from the automatic stay caused by a bond. Presumably, when a court has the power to grant a stay, there would be an implicit right of the party to: i) request that they do it (by appropriate motion); and ii) have an opportunity to argue that to the judge. Hence, today's hearing.

- i still have not seen an estimate of how much trump would be out, on a nonrefundable running total, for ~$0.5B bond.

The media reports have said that the typical premium for an appeal bond would be 1-3% of the face value of the judgment (including pre-judgment interest).

Outlets are reporting that Trump has "counter-offered" to come up with a $100 million dollar cash bond backed by the existence of his "vast portfolio" of real estate in his New York State civil fraud judgment.

So let me see if I've got this straight: he wants to use as collateral the exact properties that he was convicted of having committed fraud by inflating their values?

I believe that would meet the dictionary definition of "ironic", if not "insane".

So let me see if I've got this straight: he wants to use as collateral the exact properties that he was convicted of having committed fraud by inflating their values?

Eeeeeeeeeeeyup.

You have to step back and stop for a few seconds to contemplate the sheer magnitude of the chutzpah behind that kind of thinking, right?


WTH

The media reports have said that the typical premium for an appeal bond would be 1-3% of the face value of the judgment (including pre-judgment interest).

ok, i dont have don's equifax report handy, but hope i am not a shareholder in any group that only requires a single digit premium. given the negative publicity and real chance of having to wring out ~$0.5B from trump, and any unknown claimants to trump's assets that could come out of woodwork, it seems off.

let's check fox news, and discount for ~80% bias and being in his 2016 heyday :
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trumps-busine...


i still think someone with non-economic interests will bail him out, or already has at the $100M bond level.

i still think someone with non-economic interests will bail him out, or already has at the $100M bond level.

I seem to recall Trump's son in law got a couple billion in funding from the Saudis.

" Six months after leaving the White House, Jared Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince, a close ally during the Trump administration, despite objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal.

What's a half billion give or take a few tens of millions here and there. After all, isn't that what family is for?

The family that cons together pawns together.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/10/us/jared-kushne...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.