this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
135 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2831 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

KEY POINTS

  • Donald Trump and his co-defendants were in talks with insurance giant Chubb for a $464 million appeal bond, but the company backed out, a Trump Organization lawyer said. 
  • Chubb previously provided Trump’s $91.6 million appeal bond in writer E. Jean Carroll’s civil defamation case.
  • In his New York civil business fraud case, Trump’s lawyers said they reached out unsuccessfully to more than 30 companies to secure a bond.
  • Those companies include Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Liberty Mutual, Allianz, Chubb and Travelers, among others.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There's another key point in the article: the reason why those other companies didn't bite is that they would not entertain taking real estate as collateral. Chubb was the only company willing to even try and negotiate that, and Trump couldn't come up with a satisfactory package for them.

Since we already know that Trump overvalued his properties for loan purposes, it is very possible that an objective analysis of their worth vs. their outstanding debt led to the conclusion that they are mostly underwater.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

Chubb was the only company willing to even try and negotiate that, and Trump couldn’t come up with a satisfactory package for them.

I'm seeing possibly subtext here that Chubb intentionally screwed Trump which was a surprise.

So Team Trump were talking with Chubb for bonds against both the $91 million judgment as well as the $464 million judgment. Team Trump was offering up both liquid assets (the Schwab brokerage account with whatever stocks and bonds are in there) and real estate. Team Trump really wanted bonds against the real estate.

It looks like Chubb said something like "Hmm, well we have two bonds we're talking about here. Lets do the $91 million bond in purely liquid, and then we can look at the real estate for the $464 million bond. Seeing how you need the $91 million bond in a couple of days lets get that knocked out first". Team Trump agreed handing over all the liquid assets (the Schwab account) so the $91 million bond is now "fully collateralize" meaning liquid money to back up the bond.

Then Team Trump says "Okay the $91 million bond worked great! Now lets do the $464 million bond backed by Trump real estate!"

Chubb says "Hard pass, not interested."

So all the good stuff is gone and Trump has nothing good left to try to secure any bond on the $464 million. Chubb makes whatever commission they placed on top of the $91m bond, and simply pays out the $91m to Jean Carrol when the appeal fails. Jean Carrol wins, Chubb wins, Trump gets played.

I say all of this with zero love for Chubb, but when a grifter gets grifted, its satisfying to watch.