Earlier today AverageOldGuy posted the idea that possibly Russian money was behind Trump's bond.

[flashman13]

There was a great deal of push back on the idea. I felt that both sides of the argument had merit. I posted a reply which became fairly lengthy. I decided to repost that reply here in order to stimulate further discussion.

Trump claims to be a multi-billionaire. He claims he has significant cash on hand (Habba Babba said 500M). When you and I say we have cash, we usually mean folding money or a bank account. When wealthy people say cash, they don't mean that they have money stashed under the mattress. What they really mean is that they have liquid assets. That means they have unencumbered funds parked in some sort of interest bearing situation that they can access and move around on very short notice. They don't have to sell or mortgage a property (or their private jet) to free up assets.

To satisfy the court, Trump in some way had to pledge $91M before he could make an appeal. That money has to be unencumbered, so that if the appeal fails, the court can disburse the full amount to the E. Jean Carrol immediately. Trump did not put up his own money. Instead, he got Federal Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Chubb Group LLC, to provide the court with a $91M bond. In this situation, the bond is like a loan. I have no reason to believe that F.I.C. would put up the money on more favorable terms than Honest Abe's House of Bonds. That means a 20% fee up front to obtain the bond. In this case that's about $18M. If you have liquid cash somewhere, why would you get a bond? Unless you are a loan shark, your cash is going to be earning significantly less than 20%. So you sacrifice your earned interest and use your own money. That's just simple math. Trump used a bond which must mean he doesn't have the cash.

The big question I have is, why would any legitimate company put up any size bond for Trump? What could induce a loan officer or loan committee to cover Trump?

Before Honest Abe or F.I.C. is going to put up a bond, they are going to want collateral to cover their money. Trump would have had to pledge a property with a least $91M in equity. They would also have to look at his financial statements. Oops! We already know he has been adjudicated a fraudster. You can't believe anything Trump tells you. How would you really know if his collateral had $91M in equity? It is difficult for me to see how F.I.C. could do their necessary due diligence in such a short time to assure themselves that their bond is covered.

If Trump's appeal fails, he must pay Carroll immediately. If he refuses or can't pay, then the court orders F.I.C. to transfer the funds to Carroll. Now Trump has to pay F.I.C. or they seize the collateral. They sell off the collateral. This is where the rubber meets the road. If the property is already encumbered by previous loans or pledges (which surely have numerous attached covenants), those encumbrance holders have first call on the proceeds. After all of those debts are covered, then F.I.C. gets it's money. There is no guarantee that there will be $91M left. Also, this will surely spawn numerous law suits. F.I.C. could find itself fighting with numerous other debt holders.

Now add to all that the fact that Trump owes roughly $500M on his fraud judgement. There is no way he has that kind of cash available. If he wants to appeal, there will have to be another bond. If F.I.C. or any other organization puts up a bond, you can definitely assume something is rotten in Denmark. As soon as the judgement grace period ends and Trump can't pay, James is going to attach everything Trump owns in New York. No matter what, the Carroll appeal will still be going on when James starts grabbing assets. Now it's a fire sale. Trump's Carroll collateral could seriously crash in value. Law suits are going to fall like rain. F.I.C. has people way smarter than me in financial matters. They would have had to take all of this into consideration. F.I.C. stands a good chance of getting burned.

Which brings me back to my original question, why would any "legitimate" company working under normal banking practices put up the bond? Me thinks something really is rotten in Denmark or Gotham.

[RKP5637]

1. Yep! Besides his poop smell, something smells rotten all the way around.

[mitch96]

21. When it comes to TFG and money needs I suspect putin first.TFG is putins access to all things American and its secrets.

Follow the money and it gives you the answers most of the time...
m

[JoseBalow]

45. Putin is straapped for cash, my bet is on the Saudis

Besides, drumpf is the one paying off Putin, not the other way around.

[mitch96]

56. I don't believe putin is strapped for cash.. ruzzia is strapped for cash. putin is one of the most personally

wealthy people in the world.
He has been sucking petro-cash out of the ruzzia for many years..
So sending some cash to The Chub group via back channels is just pocket change for putin..
My thoughts...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-really-thinks-putin-is-significantly-richer-than-me-2022-3

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-02-17/vladimir-putin-could-be-worlds-richest-man-with-200-billion-net-worth-report-says

[soldierant]

72. He needs to have gazillions, if so.

Last I heard the ruble was worth about $0.01. I'm not saying he doesn't -only that the amount in rubles would be an incomprehensible number.

[mitch96]

74. I also assume he has buckets full of gold, diamonds etc..Hard stuff that is not dependent on currency fluctuations.nt

[RKP5637]

54. Yes!!!

[DLCWIdem]

2. Someone on MSNBC floated the idea of a cosigner

ELON MUSK said he didn't give him money. But cosign.. maybe

[Irish_Dem]

22. Yes, is there a co-signer and if so, who is it?

[Thunderbeast]

31. Andrew Weisman suggested the co-signer

Chubb is just laundering the security.

[Irish_Dem]

34. Who does AW think is the co-signer?

Let me guess.

[Thunderbeast]

48. Follow the rubles...

Chubb is just laundering the security.

[pwb]

3. Maybe he will fly home with Orbon?

And stay there.

[erronis]

12. I think he'd find Hungary not quite as lux as NYC or Miami Beach

But I bet they can make cheap rip-offs of McBurgers.

[Harker]

19. He thinks he's going to Turkey. n/t

[JoseBalow]

46. Turkey? This is the Staten Island ferry!

[DFW]

23. Hungary is an agrarian country with pretty great food, actually

However, although Budapest is a pretty cool city, it ain't Manhattan, and Hungarian is a bitch of a language to learn. It is not of European origin, and has a grammar and vocabulary straight from hell. Besides, its coastline consists of the Danube river and a big lake (Balaton) that is not very deep, and the fishing pretty much isn't. It's OK for short visits (a week, if you like to hunt, I'm told), but each time I was there, a long weekend was enough. I could hang out in Manhattan for half a year and not get bored.

[dalton99a]

60. +1

[dutch777]

4. While his books are jiggered, it seems clear he has illiquid assets that could cover bond value. That said...

...you do have to wonder why a respectable financial institution would want to be associated with this stench? Russia is a possibility but they are as much damaged goods as Trump and if said financial institution got tied to fronting for Russian interests, would be even worse reputational damage than the stench of moldering orange man. What I would think is more likely is a big $$$ donor type who does lots of business with the institution, or may even be on the board, pushed this activity internally and quietly.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. This

The bond is liquid as it's Chubb's cash.
The collateral Chubb accepts isn't required, nor even likely to be, liquid.
If they are covered for the bond amount, plus statutory interest, plus their return, they'll get their money even if liquidation of selected assets is required.
I also agree that Chubb wouldn't want to get near anything close to extralegal. The return wouldn't begin to cover the headaches & potential reputational damage.
It's much less convoluted to assume the bond is covered by assets with true market value in excess of the cash they're risking.

[WarGamer]

5. Your premise is wrong.

If the appeal fails... FIC pays EJC.

Trump is out of the loop.

EJC gets paid.

FIC has guaranteed payment to EJC and they've analyzed and approved Trump's collateral.

[flashman13]

14. I don't understand why you think Trump is out of the loop.

Trump or someone has put up collateral to cover F.I.C.'s money. If they have to pay, they are not going to write it off. Trump or his backers are liable. You know, given Trump's reputation,there is going to be serious litigation all around.

Why would a "legitimate" company want the hassle no matter what the return?

Trump's businesses are intentionally opaque. Michael Cohen, who should know, says everything Trump has is leveraged to the max. How do you perform due diligence on a fraudster? F.I.C. wouldn't be the first financial institution that Trump has scammed.

Me thinks something stinks.

[WarGamer]

24. It's done. Trump loses the appeal and FIC sends a check to EJC.

They will, at that time... collect the 91m + fees from Trump from the collateral they've already surveyed.

[maxrandb]

33. Why would you not write off $91M

to have the most powerful office on the planet in your pocket?

F.I.C not only had to secure collateral to cover their potential losses, they had to know that there is also A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in additional judgments against him coming due in less than a month.

Throw in that he's an adjudicated rapist and fraud with 91 additional felony indictments pending criminal prosecution, and this makes no fucking sense.

Please read the two paragraphs above again, and try to convince anyone that FIC did their "due dilligence".

Better yet, try to imagine any legitimate business that would do business with such an individual.

Anyone else with this record, couldn't be able to secure a bond, or an insurance policy for a McDonald's Big Mac meal.

[Irish_Dem]

35. Yes 91M is a cheap price to pay to install Trump back into the WH.

It would be worth much much more money to our enemies and the world's oligarchs.

[Ocelot II]

7. There is much misunderstanding about how an appeal bond works. First, it's not a loan at all, it's insurance.

This is a completely normal transaction that takes place in virtually all appeals, especially from large verdicts (in commercial litigation, where this most often happens, the verdicts can be much larger than this one). The insurance company provides a bond that assures that the winning party in a lawsuit will get the funds they were awarded if the other party's appeal fails. If a bond is not provided the winning party can execute on the judgment immediately, but most people don't want to do that because it's a slow, expensive process with no assurance of success - the losing defendant can hide assets, file bankruptcy, take other measures to avoid paying. An appeal bond avoids all of this, and also removes the incentive for the losing party to appeal just for the purpose of delay.

The insurer in this case is a subsidiary of a huge multinational corporation, the Chubb Group, one of the largest publicly-traded insurers in the world. it is the umbrella for insurance companies in 55 countries, and it is publicly traded so you can look up their SEC 10K form showing their financials. Thirty of its companies are US corporations. One of these, the Federal Insurance Co., issued the bond. It ensures that E. Jean Carroll will be paid immediately if (when) she wins the appeal. It would have charged a premium in a percentage corresponding to the risk, and in most cases these bonds also require collateral in the full amount of the verdict plus interest. They would not have issued the bond (which also has to be approved by the court) if they felt there was a significant risk of loss. This is the business they are in; they know how to evaluate these risks; they do it all the time. This is not an unusual situation. It's perfectly normal.

And I can't for the life of me figure out why people have their panties in a wad over this, since it benefits Carroll, not Trump. Why do so many of you want her to have to chase him for the money he owes instead of making him follow the normal, accepted procedure of obtaining an appeal bond?

Also, the money isn't coming from Russia. The Chubb group has a single (probably fairly small) separate subsidiary in Russia, among the other 54 countries where there are subsidiaries. The company that issued Trump's bond is a US company based in New Jersey. It doesn't do business in Russia. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and not everything is a Russian conspiracy.

[erronis]

15. Thanks for that additional info. The original post and push-back wasn't as clear.

This makes sense.

It still doesn't clear the air in my mind since all of these companies and international financial institutions are in the web of money transfers of which some may not be as clean as others. Witness the Panama Papers, Deutsche Bank, Russian assets in Cyprus and London, etc.

[Ocelot II]

17. Chubb is publicly-traded, which makes money-laundering a little trickier.

Their SEC 10-K and other filings are on line and you can read them for yourself. https://investors.chubb.com/financials/sec-filings/default.aspx

[erronis]

25. Another good discussion on this from EmptyWheel

https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/03/08/history-is-watching/#comment-1043656

[Pluvious]

66. Everyone should read this - thanks for sharing (nt)

[moniss]

28. The bond does not

automatically pay to the plaintiff if the defendant loses the appeal. The defendant has the option to pay directly in lieu of the bond being used. If the defendant files for an emergency stay of the appellate judgement with a higher court it could grant the stay and any payment. It is false to give the impression that on the day the appellate court would find against the appellant that the next day the plaintiff has millions in their bank account.

[Ocelot II]

30. True, that was a bit of an oversimplification. It would have been more accurate to say

that her right to the money accrues when she wins the appeal, and she won't have to chase after it herself as would be necessary in the absence of a bond.

[moniss]

47. I would just point out that the

idea that a large multi-national company in the financial services industry would commit massive fraud, money laundering etc. is well proven by way of Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Chase, Citi etc. For what it's worth it appears to be that Kaplan has not given court approval to the "bond" paperwork yet as evidenced by his giving time for review and input from the plaintiff lawyers as to their position on the paperwork as submitted.

I did also yesterday bring up the point that if multiple parties or aspects are involved in standing behind this bond then we don't want to have a situation where the appeal gets going and half way through one of the "backers" of some aspect to the bond starts to back out, file bankruptcy etc. and raise any questions about the stability of the bond. I went into some of the questions that could come up in that hypothetical situation and how the defendant could react with spurious motions claiming "unfairness" etc. if the appellate proceedings are stopped half way through so to speak. Not that they would win any but it would seem to be an avenue for more and more delay via motions, responses, hearings, denials, appeal of denials etc. It might well be that a court would swat these delay tactics away quickly but as we have seen there are no guarantees of that.

It is very prudent for Kaplan and for the plaintiff lawyers to really look at this paperwork and consider it carefully.

[Ocelot II]

49. Since the bond has to be approved by the court anyhow, I'm sure Robbie Kaplan will do her due diligence.

I've just been trying to point out that there's nothing inherently nefarious about this thing; it's a normal part of the appellate procedure. If TFG is paying for it in some dodgy way that would prevent the bond from becoming effective, obviously that's a consideration since that's how he rolls, but it's reasonable to assume that this is just another legal expense along with attorneys' fees, filing fees, transcripts, etc., that are probably being picked up by the same PACs and donors who are paying the rest of them. There seems to be a belief that there's something strange about this process and there really isn't.

[moniss]

52. I agree with you 100%

that inherently under normal circumstances this stuff is routine. I also agree with you that there is a ton of misinformation out there about civil cases, judgements, process etc. When people were proclaiming that a plaintiff can just go and have the county sheriff put locks on the doors the day a time for filing an appeal has expired don't understand legal process. I tried to get people to slow down and understand that once a deadline passes there is legal paperwork that goes to the court asking for an order. A simplification of that is that the plaintiff lawyers file a motion noting the case, the decision, the law regarding time to file an appeal, an explanation of the date when the clock started ticking and when it would end. They would note that the time has now expired and they would request an order to allow seizure of assets that are known to be able to satisfy the judgement. That is greatly simplified and if a judge wanted to allow a bank account for instance to be attached he could go for it in a simple case but even in simple cases when you're collecting a judgement it is not always that simple.

I remember several years ago helping a lady collect on a small claims judgement she had against a person doing odd-job home repair/remodeling on the side of his regular employment with a carpet company. The dollar amount was small as I remember like under $1000 or so. She gave him cash he never came back but was still at the carpet company. So I thought it would be a simple matter of getting paperwork to the carpet company to garnish wages or to the county sheriff's office for them to serve on banks etc. I was surprised to find out that first she had to "perfect" the judgement. Which meant filing specific paperwork with the court basically saying you had been in case number such and such and judgement had been given in your favor and now you were notifying the court and the defendant that you were asking for the process for collecting to proceed. That may be a little clumsy in wording but that is basically the gist of it. So you serve the papers on the other party and then they have x number of days to respond. In this case the guy didn't and so we go to the next legal step is that she had to file papers with the court asking for a hearing to get an order for collection. That notice of hearing gets served on the defendant and also requires the defendant to provide financial information for the hearing. In this case he blew it all off and he disappeared.

But if he hadn't and he had showed up in court then the judge would look at the financials, hear from the parties and then under guidelines used he would make a determination about garnishment, taking bank accounts etc. and the judge would issue an order that then the plaintiff can use to move on banks, employers etc. Similarly here in the case of a complex web of assets, liens and huge judgements a court is going to hold hearings and flesh out the financials etc. and make a ruling on which assets to seize in order to satisfy the judgement. That is a legal process.

Some people have been floating the idea that a plaintiff can just go and start grabbing everything up. The legal process is there so that a plaintiff recovers what they are entitled to by judgement and not by grabbing/encumbering assets that are 4 times higher in value than the judgement or that have circumstances that require further court scrutiny. That is all what is supposed to happen during the legal process to collect on a judgement. As you previously so correctly pointed out, once an appeal is lost and finalized or a deadline to appeal passes the plaintiff now accrues the right to move into the legal process for collection on the judgement.

[58Sunliner]

64. You just shot your argument down.

" If TFG is paying for it in some dodgy way that would prevent the bond from becoming effective, obviously that's a consideration since that's how he rolls,"

[Ocelot II]

70. The bond would be canceled if he was found to have submitted overvaluations of his collateral, for example.

That's what I meant. If he handed the insurer cash to pay the premium, however, they are not likely to question where he got it - that isn't their problem.

[Justice matters.]

65. One question (sorry for not knowing the answer):

If the orange hitler loses the appeal, can he tell his lawyers to file a motion to stay in order to appeal the verdict to his extreme court?

If yes, what happens to the bond?

If no, final verdict and E. Jean Carroll gets the full amount.

[mgardener]

69. Except that

Trump is running for POTUS

[Silent Type]

8. Maybe trump is better off financially than we think/hope. In any event, Chubb is a big assed

company traded on NYSE and I doubt seriously they are taking on too much risk without strong assurances from trump.

Besides, if they have to pay $90 M, they are going to go after trump as vigorously as bounty hunters going after a bail jumper.

[Irish_Dem]

36. If Trump is installed into the WH, no one is going to go after him.

[COL Mustard]

61. Which is why we have to vote in great enough numbers

That fraud can't happen and the result can't be in doubt.

[Irish_Dem]

62. Yes Dems always have to get more votes than necessary.

To overcome the GOP cheating and lies.

[onecaliberal]

9. Of course it is. He was delaying until his friend victor paid him a visit.

Pun intended.

[Dan]

10. Sort of off the walls idea...

He has floated the idea that there is a good chance he will become president again - and then there are all kinds of shady deals that he can do that will pay off the loans. As he said, if he doesn’t get immunity then he is subject to blackmail. And if he doesn’t get re-elected president maybe the collateral is his life, which would be a hell of a motivator to do anything and everything to be president again.

[Irish_Dem]

37. Exactly, if Trump is back in the WH, he can generate $billions in revenue

with his underhanded deals.

Plus he stops all the legal action, so no more legal bills or court fines.

Money won't be a problem them.

[CincyDem]

11. With all due respect...no.

Insurance companies routinely take on risk. This is just another risk to them. They figure out the odds of getting paid back and set the interest and collateral at a rate and price that makes sense.

91 is nothing for them. 450 is just a little more than nothing but still easy. They don’t need soverign money to cover it.

[et tu]

13. the dark and dusty roads

to dark money- which he knows how to access.
something is rotten in the state of putin and musk~

[progressoid]

16. "If you have liquid cash somewhere, why would you get a bond? "

The wealthy (this includes Trump to some degree or another) rarely spend their own money.

[Wonder Why]

55. There are a lot of reasons but a big one may be that you are better off that way.

Say you have $1,000 in the bank and $5,000 in a loan to someone that you can call at any time but will lose the interest on the $5,000 if you take it back early. You get arrested and the bond is $2,000. Would you use your $1,000 and borrow $1,000 or get the $5,000 back? It all depends on how much you lose in interest on your bank account and pay in interest on your loan vs what you lose if you pull out your $5,000. You could pay cash but should you?

[TexasBushwhacker]

18. Here's how I look at it

Biden will be 82 when he's sworn in for his second term. Trump would be 78.

Biden has been examined by his physician and is in good physical health. He exercises and eats healthy food. He can ride a bike.

Trump is overweight/obese. He takes a statin for cholesterol. It is said that he is incontinent. He eats junk and doesn't exercise. He can ride a golf cart.

Biden is married to a woman who cares for him and wants him to live a long, healthy life.

Trump is married to a woman who cares about his bank balance and wants him to die ASAP.

Biden is currently subject to a politically motivated impeachment inquiry which, so far, is going nowhere.

Trump currently has civil judgements of over half a BILLION dollars, as well as new civil a criminal trials upcoming.

All politics aside, which person has their shit together enough to be POTUS for the next 4 years?

[erronis]

26. Your last sentence is the clincher. "... which person has their shit together enough to be POTUS for the next 4 years?"

[TexasBushwhacker]

29. If they were both 60 years younger

Which one would qualify to get into the FBI? Trump's debts and legal woes make him a tremendous security risk.

Even if he was later exonerated, RIGHT NOW, he is in a world of hurt. He simply doesn't have the time and attention span to serve as POTUS. I'm not sure he even has the time and attention span to play golf! He's probably taking a lot of mulligans.

[stopdiggin]

20. "why would anyone .."

Because there is money to be made (in either interest or collateral) - and it doesn't have to be any more intricate or convoluted than that.

[Irish_Dem]

38. We know there is a motive of some sort.

That is given.

We just don't know what the motive is.

[stopdiggin]

57. profit seems to be a perfectly adequate one to me -(nt)-

[sarisataka]

40. Sometimes the simplest answer.

Is is the correct answer.

[jmbar2]

27. Could Chubb just take out a big life insurance policy on him and wait for him to take the dirt nap?

Paying off the bond? Let's him off again, scott free.

[erronis]

67. The payments on that insurance policy would probably be astronomical

Think about a $100,000,000 policy on an individual who may have only a few months to live. Actuarial might give a 6-month range.

And then think about the chances that the individual may be targeted for elimination by the very people that helped him get elected. (Not pointing fingers.)

Might as well go gamble at one of Trump's Casinos.

[jmbar2]

75. But if Chubb itself took it out, wouldn't it be like Dead Peasant's insurance?

All they have to do is wait him out. Cha Ching!

[Irish_Dem]

32. We have an obligation to ask such questions.

Trump is a ruthless sociopath who is on a crime spree.

We cannot be naive and foolish.

Ask questions every time Trump makes a move.

[bluestarone]

42. Agree with this.

We do have to realize that this ALL is between Ej. Carroll and her lawyers. (Gotta hope they are very smart on their options) I'm thinking we are all outsiders to this bullshit, and the ONLY way we will discover full truth is gonna be on Carroll and her lawyers informing us. (the public) I'm like you, TFG has a 100% proven track record about his being a fucking TRAITOR to us all. I trust NOTHING from this company and TFG. It will be so easy for them to hide who is paying what. WE will never know, BUT if he sales no property to pay off bond, I will know what happened.

[sarisataka]

39. Well the assumption is wrong because it is not done under banking practice but insurance practices

Insurance companies are in the business of covering risks and they obviously came to a conclusion of what the cost of the risk is.

I'm sure chubb has set themselves up for a win no matter what happens.

[Warpy]

41. He's always been able to talk money out of people who should know bette

It's his only true talent.

Whether it's a bunch of assholes like fellow billionaires or members of the Russian mob, it's all the same. It's people are stting on piles of stolen money and who think "investing" in him will get them what they want, and they're right, whether it's more tax cuts or the complete destrution of this country as a representative democracy. One group will defjnd the government to destroy it and the other will simply turnhim loose to destroy it outright.

I doubt he sold enough stock to post the bond and he has no other collateral, his buildings and businesses mortgaged to the hilt and/or up for seizure.

Nobody else would trust that thing with money. While an appellate court will likely reduce the payout by a lot, it is still likely to be in the seven figures. That's a bad bet for the usual lenders.

[bucolic_frolic]

43. There is still a lot of secret money in the world

Dark money, crypto, kingdoms, Swiss banks holding money from just about anyone. Where did Reichs Bank dissolve into?

How are secret banks anything but money laundering?

[erronis]

68. The "financial disclosures", etc. are just for the plain folk.

As long as lawyers and financial types can make millions per year helping the billionaire (or wannabe) class keep their money out of harms way, these folks will swarm around the big fish.

You, me - good luck with your taxes!

[Pototan]

44. K&R

[EndlessWire]

50. Popok had an interesting point to make

about the bond. He said that Trump lied to the Judge while begging for an extension to pick up the bond. He said the date of the now public bond precedes the court begging episode. This would mean that Trump already had the bond in his pocket when he motioned the court. What a weasel. And, why? Delay? 3 days?

I think that this insurer is going to eat the cost. So, they're risk takers. Good luck. I think they will have to pay off EJ, and then pursue Trump. Trump may be in jail by then. And, I'll bet he negotiated an all inclusive deal for the fraud case, as well. I think his intent is not to lose one square inch of his empire.

Trump will gather the money from the RNC, and that stock deal. The Judge in the stock deal said it was okay for him to continue the merger, where the stock is going to get diluted. Trump stands to make $4 billion from that. The two guys opposing this are his business partners in his Truth Social media company. They sued Trump for diluting their stock value, best as I can figure. Not well versed in stocks. But, my dream of a video showing the Trump name removed from at least one of his properties will have to be dialed back.

[onenote]

51. How many supersedeas bonds have you been involved with? Because a 20% fee would be absurd.

The typical premium for a supersedeas, or appeal, bond is between, .3 percent and 3 percent. Here are a couple of examples:

Here are two examples of the appeal bond costs in large judgment cases:

First, in a patent infringement case, Ericsson won a judgment of over $132 million against TCL Commc'n Tech. The cost of the supersedeas bond obtained by TCL to stay paying that judgment pending appeal was $1,124,491.74/year - less than 1 percent. And the cost of the corporate guarantee paid to get the supersedeas bond was around $600,000 --- for a total of around 1.3%.

Another example: in the Exxon Valdez litigation, the original award of damages was $5 billion dollars. Exxon paid $60 million to obtain a supersedeas bond pending its appeal -- around 1.2%

Frankly, I would be concerned if the bond premium was 20 percent if I was E. Jean Carroll since, if Trump somehow managed to be successful in his appeal -- and I know we all fervently hope and believe he won't -- she could be on the hook to reimburse him for his premium costs under Rule 39 ( e ) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

[brush]

53. If true, Putin owns trump even more and just waiting for the keys...

to the US once trump wins re-election.

[lark]

58. Something is rotten between Merde a logo and Moscow.

Also Saudi Arabia.

[Hotler]

59. I would bet that most of the orange one's money is Russian mob money. The only way to repay that debt is to become

president and then steal it from the American tax payers.

[coprolite]

63. Can the court ask to see the details of the contract

I think it would be enlightening to see the details of the contract. What Trump owes, the interest rate(is it a deal that no one would get), the terms of repayment, what he had to put up for collateral?

[KS Toronado]

71. So how much would the Court get for tRump Tower in a fire sale.

[bluestarone]

73. Surely this asshole had to show some collateral

for this loan? Just wondering if the Carroll team can request what TFG is using for collateral with this insuance com? Compare to his previous DISCLOSURE forum they filed way back in the start of this hearing.

[Diraven]

76. So why does no one actually know?

What are the actual terms of the bond agreement? Are they secret or something? Why all this speculation?

It seems like the judge in this case should have to know at least, so maybe it's possible for someone to actually find out.