Trump says $175 million bond is financially secure, asks judge to reject New York attorney general's challenge
Source: CNN Politics
Published 12:10 AM EDT, Tue April 16, 2024
CNN Lawyers for former President Donald Trump said his $175 million bond posted to satisfy the judgement in the New York civil fraud case is financially sound, and they asked the judge to set aside the attorney generals challenge to the bond and award him costs and fees.
In court filings Monday night, Trump said the bond secured by Knight Specialty Insurance Company is backed by Trumps Charles Schwab account with more than $175 million in cash. Knight Specialty can take control of the Schwab account and is fully backed by its parent company to assume any risk, one of Trumps filings said.
The DJT Trust granted KSIC a security interest in a Schwab brokerage account, in which the DJT Trust is obligated to maintain no less than $175 million in cash or cash equivalents at all times, according to an affirmation filed in support of the bond by Gregory Serio, a former superintendent of insurance for New York state and partner of Park Strategies, a government consulting firm.
KSIC also has a standing agreement with its parent company, Knight Insurance Company, Ltd. (KIC), by which KIC reinsures 100% of KSICs risk, the affirmation said. The $175 million bond at issue is adequately secured.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/politics/trump-civil-fraud-case-bond-financially-secure/index.html
Laf.La.Dem.
(2,944 posts)If Trump says its true it must be true
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,592 posts)MAGA 1:1 God Bless the USA Bible, DJT Version (Amazon. $20 soft cover)
Traurigkeit
(243 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,592 posts)My OP post should have started with
The quote is based on one I saw on a bumper sticker, except it began, "The Bible says it..."
I'm loving how the judges are referring to TFG as "Mr. Trump," no matter how many times his lawyers say otherwise.
Traurigkeit
(243 posts)cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,592 posts)He's lying.
Traurigkeit
(243 posts)NJCher
(35,730 posts)There is no more info at the link.
I dont see why it has to be set up this way, which would require constant monitoring on the part of the state. Why should the government be put in that position?
It seems to me that whether this setup works or not is then dependent on people in the systemSchwabs system and within the monitors system. We all know that those people can be pressured, at least within Schwab. I think its asking too much of the monitors office.
Im not an expert in high finance but it appears he does not want to have to liquidate his holdings, but for the purpose of functionality, that would be best. It seems like he is holding his appeal as leverage in order to do this.
I can see why people in the government would try to be fair under those circumstances (that he might win his appeal).If I am correct, then he is exacting enormous pressure on all concerned in this matter. I would hate to be in their position (s).
On edit: re the last paragraph, it sounds like a house of cards. One entity of a company insuring another. It seems to be spreading responsibility around.
bullimiami
(13,103 posts)So either they corrected it or they didnt.
Ford_Prefect
(7,919 posts)banking law. There is as yet no legal determination that KSIC meets the NY requirements. It seems that it probably will not. But as said elsewhere this will take more time to resolve.
What I wonder about is whether, when KSIC is found lacking sufficient cash as I believe to be the case, Trump will then be granted an extension to secure a different source for the bond?
machoneman
(4,010 posts)...threshold of meeting NYS's bonding requirements. It also appears to me he and his lawyers spent a lot of time crafting the bond to give him maximum flexibility to, as usual, weasel out of paying let alone meeting the State's requirements. Once it's finally quashed, watch for a fast motion to go back to a 30 day window to secure funds elsewhere.
p.s. No wonder he's burning through so much cash paying his lawyers to game the system.
PatSeg
(47,587 posts)Nothing is ever as it appears to be and in this case, it is more obvious than usual.
Yes, I also wonder how the courts will handle it when it is discovered with certainty that there is insufficient cash to guarantee the bond.
GB_RN
(2,376 posts)Is that KSIC isnt even licensed to do business in New York. That alone could sink the bogus bond. Never mind the fact that the parent company is hiding behind banking laws in the Caymans. If tRump were to flop in his appeal, Tish James - and by extension, the state of New York - would find it next to impossible to collect. At least, thats my understanding.
Irish_Dem
(47,391 posts)Sure, who will stop him from turning around tomorrow and just withdrawing all the money in
his account and sticking it to Knight Insurance?
Is someone going to monitor the account day and night?
And if he takes out the money and hides it, what can the court do?
moniss
(4,274 posts)of course we would also see the spectacle of trying to collect on a bond, aka paper promise, that the issuer will claim it is no longer able to make good on and we find out what promises on paper are really worth.
Irish_Dem
(47,391 posts)Blue Owl
(50,498 posts)FakeNoose
(32,748 posts)Botany
(70,581 posts).. money to pay the bond?
Trump lies about everything.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Your question suggests that if you have the money you don't need to get a bond. But if you don't have the money to collateralize a bond, you can't get a bond. Yet lots and lots of litigant who have the funds opt to get bonds rather than put up their funds directly. One reason is that the courts greatly prefer a bond. Otherwise the court would have to handle the paperwork of setting up an interest-bearing account that would hold the money for the duration of any appeals.
Traurigkeit
(243 posts)republianmushroom
(13,677 posts)electric_blue68
(14,933 posts)EndlessWire
(6,565 posts)yesterday that the paper showing the Schwab account signatures was already used in the EJ Carroll case. This is fishy beyond belief, and I think the judge should reject the bond justification.
Novara
(5,851 posts)This is fishy as hell, and will probably end up being yet another fraud he committed.
They need to file additional fraud charges and reinstate the original judgment.
onenote
(42,759 posts)There are several reasons why getting a bond is the preferred way of securing one's assets during the pendency of an appeal. Courts don't like having to be the escrow agent for millions of dollars -- they're not set up for it. And the surety company pays interest on the collateral, whereas it's not clear the court would.
It seems as if folks are still having trouble understanding the entire supersedeas bond process.
Think. Again.
(8,392 posts)onenote
(42,759 posts)You seem to be addressing a different point..
Think. Again.
(8,392 posts)I was replying directly to your statement that "You can't get a surety without collateral."
republianmushroom
(13,677 posts)Novara
(5,851 posts)Think. Again.
(8,392 posts)...which ya shoulda done to begin with.
onenote
(42,759 posts)Think. Again.
(8,392 posts)....the E. Jean Carrol bond?
(That's a rumor I heard).
onenote
(42,759 posts)A document that was used for the Carroll bond was used as a template for a similar document in the fraud case bond and the reference to the Carroll case was inadvertently left in the document. Is that true? Don't know. Is it believable? Yes, give that I've seen similar mistakes made by far better lawyers that the ones involved here.
Think. Again.
(8,392 posts)...I'm sure no one would mind if all that was very carefully verified.