I think the constant postponing of the shareholder votes was because ahead of each vote they knew they didn’t have enough votes in favor of the merge yet. So each time when they didn’t have the numbers, they would just delay and reschedule, rinse and repeat until they had whipped up enough votes to pass it. Now they think they have the numbers, but one of the bigger shareholders/former executive is trying to scuttle the merger with a lawsuit and DWAC has filed a suit against him to force a yes vote, so Friday might be another delayed vote and the fucking drama continues.
But that’s all me going from memory. I might be wrong. I’m kind of getting saturated with it.
Broadly speaking, the difference between a condo and an apartment is one of ownership. You own a condo much in the same way you might own a house. Whereas you rent an apartment that is generally part of a larger structure full of other apartments being rented out. I imagine you might lease a condo in a similiar manner that you might lease a house, but it’s still a condo. Even if a property were owned outright by Trump, you wouldn’t be able to evict anyone who owned a condo there.
What do you think happens to gym members if their gym shuts down? I suppose they could go after the Trump organization but I suspect they’d be pissing in the wind.
There’s a difference between a gym shutting down (usually from lack of cash flow), and being bought out as a going concern. In the first case, since the business is out of business, there’s not much recourse. But in the second, if the new owner is operating it, they normally would be liable for the contracts of the former owner.
It’s worth noting that Trump’s interest in 40 Wall Street is via a ground lease:
Think about a mobile home park, where individual owners own their mobile homes, but they lease the space on which that MH sits (space rental).
Trump apparently owns the building at 40 Wall Street (thereby generating income from its tenants), but he leases (ie, pays rent for) the ground on which it sits.
[sarcasm]To whom he writes those rent checks is an exceedingly simple matter [/sarcasm]
Depending on about 5,000 different things, Trump’s leasehold interest in this building … could be worth a great deal, explaining why it seemingly keeps coming up in the press and why Letitia James utters that address in her sleep (or so I’m told).
Laphroiag 10 or 12 or Green Spot. No, not as high-class as some of you, but it’s all relative. Cask-strength Writers Tears if they ever see fit to distribute it.
But I’m waiting until the sheep come home and all the runners are caught out.
I like the Oban idea, though: heard good things, from some of the best people, so that might be an easy experiment, most likely worthwhile.
Apolgies for the hijack…I’m done with that, but seemed like a good idea at the time!
So they can take his private jet and helicopters? Even if he claims they are used in campaigning and getting to his numerous court hearings? That would be sweet to see him have to thumb rides.
And Melanias jewelry? Is that fair game as well? I’d think she has a substantial amount of her nestegg in jewelery.
Yes. That’s what a change in control typically entails: the new owner assumes all the legal obligations associated with ownership. Nobody will get kicked out.
Courts et.al. are also good at seeing through sham ownerships, where the asset is owned on paper (say, a relative), but the ownership agreement contractually provides that virtually all the financial benefits go to somebody else. I’m assuming the maze that is his financial holdings includes several.
They could. His private jet would be small potatoes compared to the total owed, but I can hear him now: “They’re preventing me from flying to meet you!” No, Donnie, they’ve just knocked $16M off what you owe. Now, you get to Little Rock or Lincoln or Pueblo on commercial. I hear Southwest is nice.
The prospect of officials requiring detailed accounting of, and seizing, his personal possessions has great appeal to me. I’d like to see a nice “sheriff’s sale” of his furniture, mementos, golden toilet…
It has been a long time since I participated in any possessions, but at the time, in Illinois, you were allowed ONE residence which was free from seizure (but subject to lien). Does the Chump actually OWN multiple residences, or does he just squat for free at the various resorts/buildings he has part ownership of? Does he OWN cars/plane/helicopter, or again, just skim use of them from corporations?
I presume jewelry that was given to/is owned by Melania would not be subject to seizure.
So Trump didn’t own the helicopter. He controlled the ownership, through a series of trusts and corporations, set up under the laws of three different jurisdictions (New York, New Jersey, and Scotland).
What’s the status of a revocable trust under New York law?
Dunno.
How easy is it to seize the assets of that trust?
Dunno.
Who are the beneficiaries of that trust?
Dunno, but if someone other than Don the Con is a part beneficiary, then it gets complicated, I would guess.
Moving on to the two New Jersey companies, who are the other 1 per cent shareholders? Because corporation law has the principle that the majority shareholders cannot oppress the minority shareholders. For instance, the majority shareholders can’t treat the assets of the corporation like their own personal property, selling the assets off to satisfy their own personal debts.
And how does Scots corporation law work, with those two companies? Does the second New Jersey company have complete ownership of the first Scots company?
Dunno.
It’s not impossible to untangle that network of companies, but my guess is that it will be difficult and take time.
So even if Trump arrives in New York city in a jet with “Trump” on it, that doesn’t mean that the bailiffs hired by the AGNY can just seize it. That have to show that Trump, or Trump Org, or Trump Spawn 1 or 2 owns it.
That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to untangle it all and seize assets, but it won’t be simple, is my guess.
As always, IANAUSL.
(Using the Scottish helicopter here as an example, because it was the one featured in the Wall St Journal article in 2016. It has apparently since been sold, by the Scottish company that owned it. However, the WSJ article indicated that there was a similar network of ownership for another helicopter and three Trump planes.)
My thinking here is that possibly they could tie the planes and helicopters up since they could show that Trump is the only person that uses them, thus he is the defacto owner. Then let the courts hash it out. Unfortunately, that may only apply to criminal seizures of property, like drug lords vehicles, boats and planes.
Maybe. I dunno. That’s an argument that Trump has beneficial ownership. Would it work? That would really be getting into the weeds of NY debt collection law (and the law in other jurisdictions).
Lots of work for high-priced NY lawyers and debt-collectors, would be my guess.
But if a property like a building is owned by a dozen interwoven trusts and shell companies, how does he (or the Trump org) use its value to get a loan?
Surely a lender won’t take collateral that can’t be collected.
But part of it is that a secured creditor is a better spot than a judgment creditor. If Big Bank took a mortgage of TrumpProperty #2, that puts them ahead of unsecured creditors like a judgment creditor. If the mortgage was originally granted years ago, and Trump has been able to re-finance each time it came due, then the security is likely still good, even if now the mortgage holder is MegaBank, not Big Bank.
I also understand from various news articles that a part of Trump’s loan collaterals is his personal net worth: that to keep the loan in good standing, he must maintain a personal net worth of a certain amount, at a value required by the bank he’s dealing with. If he drops below that personal net worth, the bank can call in the loan.
That may be how these rat’s-nests of assets factor into the decision by a bank to loan money, based on Trump’s assurances that he has a personal net worth of $ X billion, through all of his various personal assets and non-liquid holdings.
But how does the bank know that he has a personal net worth of $ X billion? Well, Trump and his accountants have assured them that he does.
But wait … isn’t that the problem here?
That may mean that the fact of now having a new debt of over half a billion affects the status of the loans, even before any enforcement. Trump’s personal balance sheet just changed drastically with the court order.
At some point, the banks may have to decide whether that change in his balance sheet, coupled with the court’s finding that he drastically over-inflated the value of his personal assets, mean that he has dropped below the minimum net worth he’s required to maintain, and that they have to consider calling the loan.
