We do not know the deal struck by Trump and Chubb but, normally, the person needing the money needs to have some kind of way to pay the people putting up the bond (collateral). If it were you or me (not $95 million), that would probably be our house and/or stock we have. If we lose, Chubb pays the other person then tells you to write a check or they take your house and retirement.
With Trump…who knows? If he becomes president maybe the Saudis will write a check. Or Putin. Or Kim Jong Un and Trump will give them some sweetheart deals or promise to stay out of their stuff.
Maybe there is some other quid pro quo Chubb is banking on.
If Trump loses, he is probably fucked. He needs to win the presidency more than anyone in history ever has.
ETA: Either Chubb is taking a gamble on Trump winning or they have some of his properties as collateral. I suspect they have his properties as collateral…if Trump wins then maybe another arrangement can be made. Doesn’t hurt to have the US president owing you a HUGE favor.
If it doesn’t cost him anything (i.e. the US government is footing the bill) he will.
If he loses I think Chubb would have required collateral they have their hands on before writing Trump a check. I believe banks are wise to Trump not paying. If Chubb turns out to be chumps I think the people responsible with have some splaining to do.
It doesn’t make any sense to me any way I turn it. Surely, the only collateral they’d accept would be something that’s not already heavily encumbered. Does Trump actually own anything without heavy encumbrance?
This seems logical to me. It"s not a purely numerical issue.
$93 million seems like a lot of money to you and me…but Chubb has $225 Billion in assets. They can afford to lose a few million , if it gains them a political advantage for future deals worth a lot more thsn 93 mill.
So it looks like, once again, Trump is successfully avoiding paying for his sleazy behavior.
But at least Carroll will collect what she deserves, even if it comes out of Chubb’s pocket and not Trump’s.
There is apparently a long and sordid history in the relationship between Trump and Chubb, which owns the Federal Insurance Company that secured Trump’s bond. In theory since the parent company is public and NYSE traded, there should be SEC oversight to ensure no hanky-panky or sweetheart deals, but we all know how well that works in practice.
Someone help me out here, I still don’t understand why she would object to the bond (or the terms of the bond).
If the cash has been deposited with the appeal court, what difference does it matter to her, how that was handled on his end? She wins the appeal and the court transfers the money to her, right? Why would she object to how he acquired it or how he’ll repay the people that put the money up.
As was noted upthread (I think), she has the right to object – for example, if the bond was posted with the help of some sketchy person or organization, if there was anything potentially questionable about the arrangement that Trump has with the bond poster, or if there was any question as to whether the money will actually be available to her once the appeals are exhausted.
In this situation, this doesn’t seem to be the case, and it seems unlikely that she’d object to it (Chubb being a large and well-known financial institution) but the court still gives her and her counsel the opportunity to examine the arrangement and agree to it.
I can understand she could push back if she believes the money is not really there. The thing I do not get is…how can the money not really be there? Isn’t that the whole point? That the bond (or cash or whatever) is in a bank? It’s verified isn’t it? The money is really there…right? Right?
Honestly, I don’t know how it could not be there, but on the other hand, we are dealing with an Individual who has a well-documented history of finding any way possible to not pay his bills; skepticism, and a concern that, somehow, he’s arranged yet another financial shell game, is absolutely warranted.
The money isn’t “there.” It’s promised. In this case by a reputable company. But she has the right to object in the abstract, because what if the Trump Insurance Company posted the bond? Or maybe the paperwork isn’t in order adequately protecting her right to collect. It’s all standard procedure, just making sure everything is lined up right. I would not expect any objection, but it’s fair to give her the weekend to review the paperwork.
If Trump only owns stuff that Chubb won’t accept as collateral, could Somebody Else offer stuff to Chubb as collateral? Possibly while striking a deal with Trump that Chubb (a) maybe doesn’t need to know the details of, and (b) maybe wouldn’t care about?
If so, it’d seem like Chubb could get what they want, and Trump could get what he wants — and maybe things eventually go well for Somebody Else, and maybe they don’t, but, hey: that’s not Chubb’s problem, is it?
Whoever is providing the collateral, I’d bet that Chubb has it securely locked up legally so that the collateral provider can’t take it back if Chubb winds up having to pay the judgment.