Less than a month after New York Attorney General Letitia James said she would be willing to seize former Republican President Donald Trump’s assets if he is unable to pay the $464 million required by last month’s judgment in his civil fraud case, Trump’s lawyers disclosed in court filings Monday that he had failed to secure a bond for the amount.

In the nearly 5,000-page filing, lawyers for Trump said it has proven a “practical impossibility” for Trump to secure a bond from any financial institutions in the state, as “about 30 surety companies” have refused to accept assets including real estate as collateral and have demanded cash and other liquid assets instead.

To get the institutions to agree to cover that $464 million judgment if Trump loses his appeal and fails to pay the state, he would have to pledge more than $550 million as collateral—“a sum he simply does not have,” reportedThe New York Times, despite his frequent boasting of his wealth and business prowess.

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    39·
    9 months ago

    That’s still not enough.

    Also giving up ALL your cash is a bad idea, you’d want to do that as a mix of cash and other assets, so he’d still need someone willing to use those as collateral.

    • BakerBagel
      7·
      9 months ago

      We wouldn’t give it up, he woild just use some of it as collateral for his bond. He gives insurance company $40,000,000 and they pay the full amount, or whatever they negotiate.

      He doesn’t have enough cash for the down payment for his loan essentially.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        This isn’t bail with a small risk of loss paid for by the guaranteed loss of 10% to the bondsman. This is 99% Chance of loss on a settled case with the reasonable expectation that Trump would fight collection tooth and nail, try to pay less than face via bankruptcy etc. It’s a risk of hundreds of millions of dollars that would take YEARS to settle. Years in which lenders could be earning returns if that money was invested elsewhere. 30 institutions said no.

        He needs to secure the loan with cash or cash equivalents for the whole shebang. Nobody wants properties which he has already borrowed against even if the net of value and loan are positive to the tune of hundreds of millions its risky and challenging to sell. He should have started mortgaging when the judge told him he’d lost and they were only determining the scope of the loss so he could have obtained favorable terms.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        23·
        9 months ago

        He has to put up 550 million.

        If he locks up 400 million (all his cash) he has no cash until this is over with and he gets it back and he can then sell assets if needed to cover it.

        That’s not a good financial move for anyone.

        No one wants to use any of his asset collateral because he’s lied about its worth so he has to use his cash.

        Edit: to clarify, no one wants to risk 500 million if he gives them 50 because they don’t think they can get the 500 back from him if he tries to back out of it.

        • Tyfud@lemmy.world
          3·
          9 months ago

          Again, as mentioned, whether it’s a good financial move or not, doesn’t really matter if he doesn’t have the capital to flex beyond meeting the requirements.

          It’s a legal judgement. It might force him to do things that are not good financial moves. That’s tough shit in life for the rest of us too. The thing here is that trump’s never been held accountable, legally, for any of the crimes he’s committed before. This is what happens when one of the oligarchs falls off their throne and gets treated like the rest of us.

          Of course, to him, he feels like this is unfair, because he’s never been made accountable. But this is just a fucking Tuesday for the 330+Million rest of us.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 months ago

            Just to be clear - I’m in no way shape or form supporting Trump. I’m just pointing out using all your cash, in any circumstance, is not a good idea. He has to solve his own problem even if it’s a bad situation

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      6·
      9 months ago

      You don’t have the option of looking at a court judgement like an investment opportunity. This is a legal judgement. You don’t get to “hold onto cash” just because not having it would risk exposure or something.

      You do this, or they start selling your assets off for an unflattering amount of money, and/or you can go to jail, or have all of the things you owned possessed and auctioned off to pay for the judgement.

      The thing you don’t get to do is not pay.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        31·
        9 months ago

        This isn’t about him paying his legal bill, it’s about a bond to appeal.

        Using all your cash to appeal is a bad idea for ANYONE

        if you lose the appeal, you can then decide on your cash and asset mix to pay it off.

        Edit: think about it this way. If you can put up asset collateral on a appeal that’ll take a year, that’s a whole year you could be earning interest on the cash and have cash for an emergency. Maybe you go half and half so you don’t risk as much of the other assets. Leaving yourself with no cash is just bad. He’s in a really bad situation so maybe he only has bad options, but that doesn’t mean it’s not bad.