Now who will pay the Trump Organization's 350 million $ fine from NY State?

[Botany]

It is growing @100,00 $s per day plus interest.

[Girard442]

1. Several possibilities:

A. Vladimir Putin
B. Mohammed bin Salman
C. Harlan Crow
D. Elon Musk

[Irish_Dem]

4. Add Xi Jinping to this list.

He will be happy to throw some money in the pot to install Trump back into the WH.

[Irish_Dem]

2. The global autocrats and oligarchs are probably taking up a collection.

Passing the hat to raise the money.

[Botany]

7. The bottom line is that "The Steele Dossier*" was 100% true because the important part of it was

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2024, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

not the pee pee story but the money Trump got. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and other
enterprises such as Iran’s Revolutionary Guard who washed millions through a Trump named
property in Azerbaijan. The Bank of Cypress and various oil oligarchs also made use of that
Middle East “Trump Money Laundry

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal


*. Btw D. Trump went to a Las Vegas club with some Russians in Feb. or March of 2013,
that to a club featured “water sports shows,” some of those Russians also met with Don Jr.
and company @ the Manhattan Trump Tower in June of 2016, and in November of 2016
some of the same Russians were seen on video celebrating Trump’s “win.”

[Irish_Dem]

9. Exactly. The money is there for Trump and has been for a long time.

The autocrats have received a very good return on their investment.

[Botany]

15. Well it is not like Trump had our military aircraft

fly out of their way lto N.E. Scotland so they had to buy jet fuel from him and then the personal from the aircraft had to stay @ his golf course too. I wonder what % of Americans really know what a grifting shit he is.


How can anybody with an I.Q. equal to or above a 🥕 vote for him?

[Irish_Dem]

17. Look at all the smart people voting and helping Trump.

All of the political operatives, attorneys, elected officials.

Trump offers them power and wealth.
They are willing to risk everything for it.

Oh yes, Trump is is a ruthless sociopath who has been on a crime spree since
before he entered the WH. Then he was a mob boss on steroids.

[dalton99a]

3. Maybe State Farm or Allstate will step up to the plate

[calguy]

6. Jake from State Farm says...

If he would have 'bundled' his insurance to cover court judgements, State Farm would have covered his bond.
Who knew?

[onenote]

5. A group of banks got together to provide Exxon with a surety for its $5 billion judgment in the Exxon Valdez case

The premiums were $60 million -- or less than 1.5% of the amount of the judgment.

I imagine Trump won't have trouble getting a bond for the NY State case judgment.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Not Quite

The $5 billion judgment was overturned. It was redone at $2.5 billion, then again at $1.8 billion.
ExxonMobil paid $900 million in a settlement after already putting in 4 years at >$60 million.
So, they didn't pay $60 million. They paid $1.15 billion.
https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/aboutepa/exxon-pay-record-one-billion-dollars-criminal-fines-and-civil-damages-connection-alaskan.html#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%20%2D%20Attorney%20General%20Dick,of%20%24900%20million%20in%20damages.

[onenote]

13. Not sure what point you're making but you're mistaken.

First, the case I was referring to is not the 1991 settlement you cite. It is the punitive damages litigation in a separate case that resulted in a $5 billion award in 1994 -- three years AFTER the litigation in the separate litigation you cite. Exxon appealed that punitive damages award and obtained a supersedeas, or appeal, bond covering the $5 billion potential liability, with a premium payment of $60 million. After taking its appeal all the way to the supreme court, the punitive damages award was reduced to $500 million in 2008. If Exxon had won a complete reversal of the punitive damages award, the plaintiffs would have been on the hook to reimburse Exxon for the $60 million premium. But the court held that despite having 90 percent of the original punitive awards reversed, the fact that it was only a partial win meant that Exxon wasn't entitled to reimbursement of its bond premium.

In any event, the point I was making, and that you apparently missed, is that Exxon was able to get a supersedeas bond covering a $5 billion judgment for a premium payment of less that 1.5 % of the amount of that liability. And its almost certain that the premium cost to Trump for his $90 million bond from Chubb isn't the 10 to 20 percent some posters are suggesting, but far less -- probably under $1 million.

I'm not sure why you think that the cost of the bond is the sum of the verdict plus the premium cost. The cost of the bond is what one pays to get an appeal bond.

If you are interested, you can find information about the history of the various cases that arose following the Exxon Valdez disaster and, in particular, the punitive damages litigation, from the following opinions-- just a few of the many decisions in the long history of the case.

2001: Ninth Circuit decision on appeal of 1994 award of $5 billion in punitive damages. In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2001)
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-the-exxon-valdez-3 2009:

2008: Supreme Court directs the lower court to reduce the punitive damages award to $500 million --Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-219.ZO.html

2009: The Ninth Circuit implements the Supreme Court's decision reducing the punitive damages award and discusses reimbursement of costs, including the appeal bond premium: In re The Exxon Valdez https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1105469.html

[ProfessorGAC]

14. A Long Post...

...that says nothing.
Exxon did NOT get away with paying such a small feaction
In addition, my point was very clear.
You claimed they paid only $90 million. I showed you that's wrong.
All the rest of your screed is a smokescreen to cover your error. Your using details to avoid admitting your first post was grossly misleading.
Now that I know this is not an honest conversation, I'm done.

[onenote]

16. Not sure why you're being obtuse. How much do you think Exxon paid for the $5 billion bond? Because that's the issue.

Rather snarky of you to accuse me of an "error" when you are relying on a completely different case decided years and years before the punitive damages litigation that was the subject of my post. And then you compound your error by conflating the amount of a verdict and the amount of a premium on an appeal bond. I never said that Exxon paid "only $90 million" (I assume you meant $60 million). I said they paid a $60 million premium to get a $5 billion bond. I didn't address the amount of the verdict they ultimately paid -- or had the surety pay paid out out of the collateral that Exxon almost certainly had to put up to get the bond. The sureties made $60 million. Nothing more. The plaintiffs got the amount of the verdict -- what they were entitled to without regard to whether there was a bond or the cost to Exxon for the bond

The bond clearly cost Exxon $60 million to cover a worst case payout of $5 billion -- a payout for which the sureties undoubtedly had obtained collateral from Exxon and that Exxon would have to make up to the sureties out of that collateral if and when he failed to win a complete reversal. Indeed, for all I know, having had the verdict reduced from $5billion to $500,000, Exxon may have decided not to rely on the bond but to pay out the $500,000, thereby unencumbering $4.5 billion that it had provided to collateralize the potential worst case verdict. But he would still be out $60 million that he paid over and above any verdict to avoid having to pay the verdict before his appeal was decided. Presumably, Exxon could gone without a bond -- as one of the cases I cited but you didn't read -- suggests. If Exxon had sufficient assets to collateraralize a $5 billion bond, it presumably had sufficient assets to forego the bond and pay the verdict without spending an additional $60 million. But doing so probably would have meant liquidating some nonliquid assets and, would have resulted in significant costs to Exxon when it sought to claw back the $4.5 billion it would have paid out that, upon appeal, it turns out it didn't owe.

Let me just ask directly: what do you think Chubb is charging Trump as a premium for the bond? Twenty percent of the $91 million? Ten percent of the $91 million? Or less that 2 percent of the $91 million.

[WarGamer]

8. Maybe Chubb has that covered, too?

[ProfessorGAC]

11. The Same Person Who Wkll Pay The $91 Million.

TFG. Chubb is lending money against collateral of real property. They want their money back, plus ROI.
They aren't paying for it. They are fronting the money.
Likely, the same will happen here.

[Silent3]

18. The question is, does Chubb really expect to get their money back?

Or are they betting on Trump winning re-election, and collecting in other ways?

[republianmushroom]

12. Saudis