342

"But the Trumpian part is that even though, or perhaps because, it may be part of a Trump scam, Knight now too may be on the hook for $175 million as it won't automatically get out from underneath its own proffered surety."

Hankey, a billionaire, has already said that his company will be able to post the money for Trump.

He was reacting to a comment on X by lawyer Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight will not be able to post the $175 million.

"Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won't have a stay [on enforcement]," he wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 1 points 2 months ago

So this article speculating a lot and discussing a couple of people who were speculating and discussing on Xitter? Wow this is worthless...

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago
  1. She was going to seize propert if no bond.

  2. This bond came in at the last second.

  3. A bunch of issues were found with the bond.

  4. A court ruled it's not valid.

  5. For some reason that means they have to pay the bond in cash, and trump has to cover the rest of the original?

[-] mephiska@kbin.run 8 points 2 months ago

A court ruled it's not valid.

Has this happened yet? all I've seen so far is the court asked the insurance co for more information, but no outright ruling on the validity.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A New York court has rejected Knight Specialty's paperwork and said it wanted to see more information on its financial backing. The company filed new paperwork on April 4.

It's my understanding that new paperwork didn't help anything.

Like, one of the issues was they weren't even licensed in NY, I don't know how paperwork could retroactively make it legal.

But while they can't promise to pay it under bond, they did sign something saying they were good for 175 million. And they don't have it.

So trump failed to post bond, and now they can seize property.

I think

Shits confusing and trump just says anything to delay this stuff. But I think if Knight doesn't cut a check for cash, they seize property up to what they couldn't out of the 175 million. Or maybe somehow the whole amount because he couldn't get the bond.

[-] mephiska@kbin.run 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What's confusing is these articles are written to sound like these things have happened when really it's just a quote from some rando who says these things are likely to happen. The court itself has not ruled on or rejected the paperwork yet. If you can find an article after 4/4/24 that says otherwise I'd love to see it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
342 points (86.4% liked)

politics

18069 readers
3820 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS