Trump Legal Troubles

[Archy1221]

12 hours ago, Mike Mcdee said:

Trump over inflated the value of his properties (and factual characteristics of the properties) to represent a better Loan To Value ratio, thus earning him a more competitive rate. Stewart sold his home to a willing buyer for asking price

Everything you said in your post I agree with which is why I’m glad you are agreeing with how silly the Leticia James case is.   Bringing in John Stewart and his situation was meant to highlight things from a different perspective.  
 

The over-inflation of property value is very nebulous thing to say because value is basically what someone is willing to pay.   In the case of the banks, it seems they were willing to accept the value presented to them based on the fact they accepted the deal and were willing to continue to deal with Trump.   
 

The factual representation of a property being wrong (overinflation of square footage)  is something I could get behind.  That said, I would have to believe those types of cases have been brought before and it would be nice to see the fines in those cases.   
 

From my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, this is the first time NY has used this type of case before and I have a hard time believing it’s a first of its kind case.  

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

 

 

 

 

This case amounts to lawfare, unless LJ starts inquiries into every other developer in NYC and the values they present for their properties. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Mike Mcdee said:

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

 

That's the thing. It's worth what the market will bear. So if someone makes you an offer, that is the market price. If you want a buyer to offer you 10 times what you paid for your house, you can sh!t in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first. Stewart's wish hand just happened to fill.  And again, the two examples discussed are vastly different circumstances. 

This is a great example of why the Trump case is/was lawfare.  Trump found a bank willing to loan him money based on what the banks market would bear.  
 

He made offers for a loan, bank accepted them after doing their own due diligence.  Bank was repaid, bank wanted to do more business with Trump Org. 

[Mike Mcdee]

 

47 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Everything you said in your post I agree with which is why I’m glad you are agreeing with how silly the Leticia James case is.   Bringing in John Stewart and his situation was meant to highlight things from a different perspective.  
 

The over-inflation of property value is very nebulous thing to say because value is basically what someone is willing to pay.   In the case of the banks, it seems they were willing to accept the value presented to them based on the fact they accepted the deal and were willing to continue to deal with Trump.   
 

The factual representation of a property being wrong (overinflation of square footage)  is something I could get behind.  That said, I would have to believe those types of cases have been brought before and it would be nice to see the fines in those cases.   
 

From my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, this is the first time NY has used this type of case before and I have a hard time believing it’s a first of its kind case.  

https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689

 

 

 

 

This case amounts to lawfare, unless LJ starts inquiries into every other developer in NYC and the values they present for their properties. 

The reason people like Tim brought Stewart into this is because they thought they were pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling out Trump. That's what internet personalities like him do; digital dunking on someone. But like I said, they are two different scenarios. I work in a field adjacent and we rely on the property owners to at least be somewhat close in their applications. So much so that the signature pages state "To the best of your knowledge" about statements of fact. There is an allowance with in reason. The magnitude of difference here lead the judge to determine intentional fraud. There are some wild parts to this case, I'll grant you that. But according to the law, it's fraud. Whether an appeals court will overturn it remains to be seen. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Archy1221]

 

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

[teachercd]

The amount of money is insane.  Those loans amounts, my god!

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

 

The KING OF DEBT!!!

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The KING OF DEBT!!!

To be fair, every real estate developer I’ve ever personally known or heard of uses debt to finance projects.   

[BigRedBuster]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

To be fair, every real estate developer I’ve ever personally known or heard of uses debt to finance projects.   

Yep.  I'm just echoing his own words.

 

But...most developers I know actually pay their debt back....Trump has a knack for not doing that.  Which, he actually brags about.

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yep.  I'm just echoing his own words.

 

But...most developers I know actually pay their debt back....Trump has a knack for not doing that.  Which, he actually brags about.

True.   Though many are getting hammered in this interest rate environment.  
 

Matters none to me as they willingly took out debt and should be responsible for it. 

 

I still say that fine in the Trump case is bulls#!t if the info listed is correct on how they came up with the fine.   The bank willingly took the loan and agreed to terms after doing their own due diligence and was paid back.  

[knapplc]

She should never have been allowed to hear this case in the first place with her obvious conflict of interest.

 

 

 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

To be fair, every real estate developer I’ve ever personally known or heard of uses debt to finance projects.   

 

True. These aren't unusual numbers for many international real estate developers.

 

What is unusual is the number of banks who refuse to do business with Donald Trump, going on 25 years now. Much of the Trump brand is in licensing and property management agreements with other entities, often foreign, who actually own the properties.  

[Archy1221]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

True. These aren't unusual numbers for many international real estate developers.

 

What is unusual is the number of banks who refuse to do business with Donald Trump, going on 25 years now. Much of the Trump brand is in licensing and property management agreements with other entities, often foreign, who actually own the properties.  

Yep.   

[TGHusker]

 

Trump's bond situation still has some issues to be worked out.   

 

Trump Bond Pickle - going from sweet to sour??

Quote

 

The $175 million bond former President Donald Trump posted in his civil fraud case came under scrutiny Thursday as the New York attorney general’s office asked the insurance company that helped him secure it to show they’re financially sound enough to pay the bond—putting the bond at risk of being invalidated in 10 days if proof isn’t provided.

 

Trump and his business associates posted bond on Monday for $175 million in his civil fraud case, after an appeals court lowered the amount that Trump had to pay immediately while he appeals the case (down from the more than $464 million a judge ordered the defendants to pay after finding them liable for fraud).

 

That bond was underwritten by Knight Specialty Insurance Company—chaired by billionaire Don Hankey, who told Forbes he approached Trump about the bond, which he said was collateralized through a combination of cash and investment-grade bonds.

The attorney general’s office, which brought the case against Trump, filed a motion Thursday asking for Knight to provide more information about its financials and how the bond was collateralized, because the company is not admitted in New York.

For companies providing bonds that aren’t admitted in New York, they have to show they’re capable of covering the full amount of the bond, demonstrating the company is financially sound and that the person who owes money has put up enough collateral to cover the full bond.

Trump and his co-defendants filed an updated bond with the court on Thursday—before the attorney general’s filing—that included more information about the company’s financials and certified their accuracy, but the attorney general’s office said that does not fully address what the company and defendants are required to provide.

Trump and his co-defendants now have 10 days to provide the court with additional information about the bond and Knight’s financials, the attorney general’s filing notes—and if they don’t, the bond will be “without effect,” though Knight would still be on the hook to pay the $175 million until Trump secures a new bond.

Trump’s attorneys and Knight have not yet responded to requests for comment on the attorney general’s filing and whether they will file more proof.

What To Watch For

The ex-president is appealing his loss in the civil fraud case, though it’s unclear how long that will take. While the appeals court has allowed him to only post the $175 million bond while he appeals the ruling, he and his co-defendants will still be liable for the full amount they owe should they lose their appeal. That amount is growing by the day, as it accrues at a nine percent interest rate each year—amounting to more than $111,000 per day for Trump alone, who’s been ordered to pay more than $454.2 million in total. (The rest of the $464 million payment is based on $4 million fines for Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., and $1 million owed by ex-CFO Allen Weisselberg.) Interest will keep accruing until the amount is fully paid off, despite the bond and Trump appealing the judgment.