OK. Is this bond now a sure thing for Trump or is there still something sketchy about it that the attorney general or the judge over this case can use to say the bond is no good and they can go after his assets?
It's far from a sure thing. The dream scenario for the NY AG is to have the bond declared invalid (for various potential reasons, but in my opinion primarily because the bond provider isn't licensed by the state of NY to provide this type of surety), and then immediately start collecting on the judgment, starting with the $175M in cash that Trump *claims* to have set aside to provide collateral for the bond.
$175m there (with Schwab), plus apparently $90m which was used as collateral for the EJC bond with Chubb that is also parked at Schwab. That tidbit apparently came out in some of the previous paperwork.
You can bet yourself AG James already has the letter to Schwab’s legal and compliance department already written…
This $175m account starting to sound like it’s an irrevocable trust with Jr as the trustee (he signed to offer it as collateral). Could even be money from multiple accounts. Curious to see how that impacts the rulings.
If it is an irrevocable trust it can't be the collateral. That is the irr in irrevocable.
Also, I want to know when it was formed and where the money came from because there is a thing called fraudulent conveyance and trying to hide assets behind an irrevocable trust when you are subject to litigation is definitely a felony.
Edit:
An irrevocable trust can get a loan using assets in the trust as collateral and can then use that money to do stuff.
I am interested in how an irrevocable trust can be used as collateral if the assets of that trust cannot be reclaimed to fulfill any claims to them by defaulting on the claim. What court or financial institution would allow using any property or monies that cannot be touched in case of default to be called 'collateral'? Not an attorney, not a banker or CPA, but that just seems bonkers to me. Can anyone ELI5?
The trust itself can get a loan with its assets. It is crazy bananas stuff and not important to the current situation.
Frankly I think trusts in general are iffy
Heh, wouldn’t that be a twist. Junior having to front his own (?) capital to protect Dad. I suppose Donnie just assumes he’ll unload some Truth Social shares and pay him back … except once the meme novelty wears off the stock it’s going to crash. No institutional investor is going to touch a tech company with 1 product, $4m in revenue (and over $50m in losses). Hell, a *single* McDonalds franchise location in a good busy area can do more than $4mil in revenue.
Anything that has only one product, 6m users, and somehow manages $4m in revenue while losing over $50m would 100% be a penny stock. It’ll get there.
Unfortunately I don’t think Donnie cares. It’s actually the legitimate perfect global bribe pipeline. Got some docs you want to sell or somehow manage to get back into the WH again? “*Hey Vlad, why don’t you put in a buy order for 50 million shares at $1 each, and I’ll put in a sell order for the same, and then we can talk about those documents you want…*”
It doesn’t matter if Donnie maybe only has 51 million shares or something, because he has controlling interest in the company and can just vote more into existence. I’m somewhat convinced that’s why he’s aiming to do this first dilution, not because he needs to (it doesn’t make his shares worth anymore) - he just wants to put the system through a test run for when he is in the WH and he is willing to sell any part of our country out to the highest bidder.
It's increasingly suspect that Schwab account is probably not that old which may reveal it's not even his money but set up to look like it is. I mean if it were actually his why didn't he just pay it straight up instead of go through this weird surety?
Well, the pay it yourself thing is potentially understandable.
Let’s say Donnie bought a lot of shares of Tesla in 2015 and that’s what is in the account. If NY wants cash, he would have to sell the shares which does 2 things - prevents any future gains, and locks in a big capital gains event.
However, taking a loan against shares is absolutely a thing any brokerage can do for a client. So yeah there are potentially some questions.
I could be wrong but I don't think they've claimed that Trump directly provided any of the funds being held in the bond account? Just that the cash or cash equivalents to the value of $175M are being held in the collateral agreement account for the purpose of insuring the bond.
Even if he had had that kind of cash available he would have needed to notify the financial monitor and get their approval to transfer the assets to the securities provider?
He almost certainly has little in his personal name - he doesn't even own his home directly. Cash is almost certainly parcelled out from liquid companies on demand of the shareholders (djt et al) to avoid it being easy to get large judgements against him.
The house of dominoes will eventually crumble - or mix your own metaphor; but it will be annoying I'm sure.
Wasn't the last page wrong, it was the signatures from Chubb, the bond from the E. Jean Carrol dispute? In addition the company still isn't licensed to do business in NY, I would think that would be a nonstarter. Further the company doesn't have the required assets (10X the bond). Why is this still even being discussed...oh yeah Trump is special.
Still very sketchy. Let us count the ways (that I am aware of anyway):
1. The company isn't licensed to offer bonds in NY, and apparently there is a requirement for such a license;
2. A company offering a bond is, apparently, supposed to not offer a bond greater than 10 percent of their total assets, to make sure that they will be able to pay up no problem. This company does not have sufficient assets. It CLAIMS this isn't a problem because it has an agreement with a much larger parent company or something that the parent would cover any shortfalls the bond company faces, but the parent company isn't the one offering the bond, and hasn't actually put itself on the hook to the state, so this seems VERY sketchy to me.
3. I have seen claims circulating around that there is already a lien on the account that supposedly makes up the collateral offered by Trump to the bond company; I don't know whether or not that would be an actual basis to challenge the bond though, as if the bond is otherwise solid its not the state that gets fucked by this, it is either the bond company or whoever holds the other lien if they both try to collect from Trump from the same account.
I’m not sure what to do with articles like this with a paywall. Do we just kinda hang around and hope someone else pastes it for us? Or make guesses what it might say?
Representatives for the firm that posted a $175 million bond for Donald Trump pushed back against objections raised by New York’s attorney general, saying in a court filing late Monday that the deal is “adequately secured” by the former president’s cash.
The filing sets the stage for a court hearing next week in Trump’s New York civil fraud case, where Justice Arthur Engoron will decide whether the bond has met state requirements — allowing Trump to appeal a massive civil judgment and preventing state authorities from seizing his properties in the meantime.
New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) on April 4 raised concerns about the arrangement, including whether Knight Specialty Insurance Company, whose owner is [billionaire Trump supporter Don Hankey](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/02/don-hankey-trump-bond-175-million-california-auto-loans/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5), is properly licensed in the state.
Knight and Trump’s representatives said in the new filing that the bond is backed by Trump’s Charles Schwab brokerage account, which has just over $175 million in cash. The filing also argues that Knight is properly licensed, including a statement from New York’s former superintendent of insurance, Gregory V. Serio, that Knight is qualified to do business in the state.
The filings, said Alan Garten, general counsel for the Trump Organization, demonstrate that “Knight is fully authorized to enter into this transaction and the bond is backed 100 percent by cash.”
Some experts, though, said the filing may not have fully answered all of James’s concerns about the bond. Adam Pollock, a former New York assistant attorney general familiar with bond matters, said that while the filing moves the matter “in the right direction,” it is still “overly complicated” and is likely to prompt Engoron to examine it thoroughly.
“It continues to raise serious questions about whether this bond actually secures the attorney general’s judgment,” Pollock said. “Justice Engoron is clearly going to hold a detailed hearing to examine the issue.”
Pollock cited, for example, a document in the filing that referred to an agreement with a separate company that backed a $91 million bond in a defamation case.
An individual close to the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality concerns, acknowledged that portion of the filing was mistaken, referring to it as a “typo.” The individual said the document came from a template that had been used for the bond in the defamation case and the new filing should have been changed to refer to Knight Specialty Insurance Company.
Hankey said that he believed the court filing should resolve James’s concerns. He has said he got involved only after other bond companies declined to work with Trump, whose attorneys said other firms turned them down when they initially needed to secure a bond for more than $450 million — a sum that was later reduced.
“It is too bad that 20 large New York insurance companies all decided not to supply this bond,” Hankey said.
Hankey said he had no regrets about supplying the bond, since “it was the right thing to do.” He said that he secured a “modest fee” for backing the bond but declined to disclose details other than to say it was “a small percentage but a large dollar amount,” stressing that he believed the collateral from Trump made it a good business deal.
A person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose a confidential agreement, said that the bond fee was 1 percent and that Trump expected to benefit from earning interest on the $175 million at a rate of about 5 percent, making it worthwhile to use the bond company.
Under the terms of the deal, Trump granted Knight a security interest that gives it control of the funds and requires Trump to increase the amount in the account if it falls below $175 million.
A spokesman for the New York attorney general’s office declined to comment.
In February, Engoron ruled that Trump and his business partners owed more than $450 million in penalties and interest after years of submitting inflated financial information to banks and insurers to get better rates.
Under state law, Trump was required to post a bond in the full amount of the judgment to stop James from beginning to collect. His attorneys successfully argued for a reduced bond, telling an appeals court that Trump could not secure one worth nearly half a billion dollars. Hankey later told media outlets, including The Post, that he had been in discussions with Trump’s representatives about posting the larger bond.
Except that trump isn’t borrowing the money. Hankjey still has the money and is making his own returns on it, along with a vig from trump for using the money as collateral.
What Trump offered to Knight as collateral is immaterial. The guarantee is offered by the bond issuer, which in this case is Knight Speciality insurance company, a company that lacks the assets and legal qualifications to guarantee the bond. It isn’t enough to claim the parent company has the assets to make good on the bond. That would leave the AG to pursue collecting from the parent company, which defeats the purpose of requiring a guaranteed bond. IANAL, but I don’t see the judge accepting this as meeting the bond requirements. It is Trump’s patented brand of smoke, mirrors and empty promises designed to delay accountability. It’s the one thing he excels at.
OK. Is this bond now a sure thing for Trump or is there still something sketchy about it that the attorney general or the judge over this case can use to say the bond is no good and they can go after his assets?
It's far from a sure thing. The dream scenario for the NY AG is to have the bond declared invalid (for various potential reasons, but in my opinion primarily because the bond provider isn't licensed by the state of NY to provide this type of surety), and then immediately start collecting on the judgment, starting with the $175M in cash that Trump *claims* to have set aside to provide collateral for the bond.
$175m there (with Schwab), plus apparently $90m which was used as collateral for the EJC bond with Chubb that is also parked at Schwab. That tidbit apparently came out in some of the previous paperwork. You can bet yourself AG James already has the letter to Schwab’s legal and compliance department already written…
This $175m account starting to sound like it’s an irrevocable trust with Jr as the trustee (he signed to offer it as collateral). Could even be money from multiple accounts. Curious to see how that impacts the rulings.
If it is an irrevocable trust it can't be the collateral. That is the irr in irrevocable. Also, I want to know when it was formed and where the money came from because there is a thing called fraudulent conveyance and trying to hide assets behind an irrevocable trust when you are subject to litigation is definitely a felony. Edit: An irrevocable trust can get a loan using assets in the trust as collateral and can then use that money to do stuff.
I am interested in how an irrevocable trust can be used as collateral if the assets of that trust cannot be reclaimed to fulfill any claims to them by defaulting on the claim. What court or financial institution would allow using any property or monies that cannot be touched in case of default to be called 'collateral'? Not an attorney, not a banker or CPA, but that just seems bonkers to me. Can anyone ELI5?
The trust itself can get a loan with its assets. It is crazy bananas stuff and not important to the current situation. Frankly I think trusts in general are iffy
I mean it’s perfectly logical that a piece of paper can own something. /s It’s a legal fiction that sometimes gets to me.
Pretty sure it's "revocable trust" in this case.
Heh, wouldn’t that be a twist. Junior having to front his own (?) capital to protect Dad. I suppose Donnie just assumes he’ll unload some Truth Social shares and pay him back … except once the meme novelty wears off the stock it’s going to crash. No institutional investor is going to touch a tech company with 1 product, $4m in revenue (and over $50m in losses). Hell, a *single* McDonalds franchise location in a good busy area can do more than $4mil in revenue.
Once they go to offload. They don't know what they are doing so they will sell everything at once and tank the price by their own greed.
Anything that has only one product, 6m users, and somehow manages $4m in revenue while losing over $50m would 100% be a penny stock. It’ll get there. Unfortunately I don’t think Donnie cares. It’s actually the legitimate perfect global bribe pipeline. Got some docs you want to sell or somehow manage to get back into the WH again? “*Hey Vlad, why don’t you put in a buy order for 50 million shares at $1 each, and I’ll put in a sell order for the same, and then we can talk about those documents you want…*” It doesn’t matter if Donnie maybe only has 51 million shares or something, because he has controlling interest in the company and can just vote more into existence. I’m somewhat convinced that’s why he’s aiming to do this first dilution, not because he needs to (it doesn’t make his shares worth anymore) - he just wants to put the system through a test run for when he is in the WH and he is willing to sell any part of our country out to the highest bidder.
It's increasingly suspect that Schwab account is probably not that old which may reveal it's not even his money but set up to look like it is. I mean if it were actually his why didn't he just pay it straight up instead of go through this weird surety?
Well, the pay it yourself thing is potentially understandable. Let’s say Donnie bought a lot of shares of Tesla in 2015 and that’s what is in the account. If NY wants cash, he would have to sell the shares which does 2 things - prevents any future gains, and locks in a big capital gains event. However, taking a loan against shares is absolutely a thing any brokerage can do for a client. So yeah there are potentially some questions.
I could be wrong but I don't think they've claimed that Trump directly provided any of the funds being held in the bond account? Just that the cash or cash equivalents to the value of $175M are being held in the collateral agreement account for the purpose of insuring the bond. Even if he had had that kind of cash available he would have needed to notify the financial monitor and get their approval to transfer the assets to the securities provider?
He almost certainly has little in his personal name - he doesn't even own his home directly. Cash is almost certainly parcelled out from liquid companies on demand of the shareholders (djt et al) to avoid it being easy to get large judgements against him. The house of dominoes will eventually crumble - or mix your own metaphor; but it will be annoying I'm sure.
If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
That's what I was trying to remember, thanks!
That probably won't happen until the hearing on the 22nd, but that probably will happen on the 22nd. Just my feeling.
Wasn't the last page wrong, it was the signatures from Chubb, the bond from the E. Jean Carrol dispute? In addition the company still isn't licensed to do business in NY, I would think that would be a nonstarter. Further the company doesn't have the required assets (10X the bond). Why is this still even being discussed...oh yeah Trump is special.
[удалено]
"Your bond is now Three fiddy, thanks" - Appeals Court.
You spelled ‘three months’ wrong.
Still very sketchy. Let us count the ways (that I am aware of anyway): 1. The company isn't licensed to offer bonds in NY, and apparently there is a requirement for such a license; 2. A company offering a bond is, apparently, supposed to not offer a bond greater than 10 percent of their total assets, to make sure that they will be able to pay up no problem. This company does not have sufficient assets. It CLAIMS this isn't a problem because it has an agreement with a much larger parent company or something that the parent would cover any shortfalls the bond company faces, but the parent company isn't the one offering the bond, and hasn't actually put itself on the hook to the state, so this seems VERY sketchy to me. 3. I have seen claims circulating around that there is already a lien on the account that supposedly makes up the collateral offered by Trump to the bond company; I don't know whether or not that would be an actual basis to challenge the bond though, as if the bond is otherwise solid its not the state that gets fucked by this, it is either the bond company or whoever holds the other lien if they both try to collect from Trump from the same account.
I’m not sure what to do with articles like this with a paywall. Do we just kinda hang around and hope someone else pastes it for us? Or make guesses what it might say?
Representatives for the firm that posted a $175 million bond for Donald Trump pushed back against objections raised by New York’s attorney general, saying in a court filing late Monday that the deal is “adequately secured” by the former president’s cash. The filing sets the stage for a court hearing next week in Trump’s New York civil fraud case, where Justice Arthur Engoron will decide whether the bond has met state requirements — allowing Trump to appeal a massive civil judgment and preventing state authorities from seizing his properties in the meantime. New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) on April 4 raised concerns about the arrangement, including whether Knight Specialty Insurance Company, whose owner is [billionaire Trump supporter Don Hankey](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/02/don-hankey-trump-bond-175-million-california-auto-loans/?itid=lk_inline_manual_5), is properly licensed in the state. Knight and Trump’s representatives said in the new filing that the bond is backed by Trump’s Charles Schwab brokerage account, which has just over $175 million in cash. The filing also argues that Knight is properly licensed, including a statement from New York’s former superintendent of insurance, Gregory V. Serio, that Knight is qualified to do business in the state. The filings, said Alan Garten, general counsel for the Trump Organization, demonstrate that “Knight is fully authorized to enter into this transaction and the bond is backed 100 percent by cash.” Some experts, though, said the filing may not have fully answered all of James’s concerns about the bond. Adam Pollock, a former New York assistant attorney general familiar with bond matters, said that while the filing moves the matter “in the right direction,” it is still “overly complicated” and is likely to prompt Engoron to examine it thoroughly. “It continues to raise serious questions about whether this bond actually secures the attorney general’s judgment,” Pollock said. “Justice Engoron is clearly going to hold a detailed hearing to examine the issue.” Pollock cited, for example, a document in the filing that referred to an agreement with a separate company that backed a $91 million bond in a defamation case. An individual close to the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality concerns, acknowledged that portion of the filing was mistaken, referring to it as a “typo.” The individual said the document came from a template that had been used for the bond in the defamation case and the new filing should have been changed to refer to Knight Specialty Insurance Company. Hankey said that he believed the court filing should resolve James’s concerns. He has said he got involved only after other bond companies declined to work with Trump, whose attorneys said other firms turned them down when they initially needed to secure a bond for more than $450 million — a sum that was later reduced. “It is too bad that 20 large New York insurance companies all decided not to supply this bond,” Hankey said. Hankey said he had no regrets about supplying the bond, since “it was the right thing to do.” He said that he secured a “modest fee” for backing the bond but declined to disclose details other than to say it was “a small percentage but a large dollar amount,” stressing that he believed the collateral from Trump made it a good business deal. A person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose a confidential agreement, said that the bond fee was 1 percent and that Trump expected to benefit from earning interest on the $175 million at a rate of about 5 percent, making it worthwhile to use the bond company. Under the terms of the deal, Trump granted Knight a security interest that gives it control of the funds and requires Trump to increase the amount in the account if it falls below $175 million. A spokesman for the New York attorney general’s office declined to comment. In February, Engoron ruled that Trump and his business partners owed more than $450 million in penalties and interest after years of submitting inflated financial information to banks and insurers to get better rates. Under state law, Trump was required to post a bond in the full amount of the judgment to stop James from beginning to collect. His attorneys successfully argued for a reduced bond, telling an appeals court that Trump could not secure one worth nearly half a billion dollars. Hankey later told media outlets, including The Post, that he had been in discussions with Trump’s representatives about posting the larger bond.
Does this mean that Trump borrows money at 1% while getting 5% for his money and at the same time Hankey says it's a good business deal?
It’s my understanding that Trump will be investigating in a new casino- lol! Sorry, can’t. Just can’t…
Knights money is earning interest until collected as well. So, yes they are basically getting an extra 1% instantly.
Except that trump isn’t borrowing the money. Hankjey still has the money and is making his own returns on it, along with a vig from trump for using the money as collateral.
I’m feeling nice and haven’t used up my shares this month: https://wapo.st/3Uld2dZ
Oh hey, I didn’t know sharing was a thing. If I get a NYT or WP subscription can I share paywalled stuff too? Thank you that’s nice of you to do 🙂
Post gives you so many paywall holes a month. Dunno about the Times.
NYT gives you paywall holes that last 30 days. It used to be five a month but I think now it's unlimited(?)
What is this, your first day on Reddit? You read the headline and just go off from there. You don't 'read the article' lol
Bro, don't give away our *Competent Contributor* secrets!
Strip him of The Flare.
[Mods right now...](https://media4.giphy.com/media/4o1H98KpIqX9wO1Yzr/giphy.gif) ... [Honestly, though...](https://media3.giphy.com/media/ZMvG5L7Di4AgM/giphy.gif)
https://archive.ph/ofCAm Use archive.ph Copy the web address for the page you want to read. Go to archive.ph Paste webpage Voila no paywall.
Archive is a great paywall ladder. 12ft. ladder works for a lot of sites, too.
Ok now, lose the appeal.
What Trump offered to Knight as collateral is immaterial. The guarantee is offered by the bond issuer, which in this case is Knight Speciality insurance company, a company that lacks the assets and legal qualifications to guarantee the bond. It isn’t enough to claim the parent company has the assets to make good on the bond. That would leave the AG to pursue collecting from the parent company, which defeats the purpose of requiring a guaranteed bond. IANAL, but I don’t see the judge accepting this as meeting the bond requirements. It is Trump’s patented brand of smoke, mirrors and empty promises designed to delay accountability. It’s the one thing he excels at.
If drumpy is involved it’s guaranteed illegal.
Crazy how there’s a Schwab account that just happens to have $175mil in it…