Trump Bond will be rejected!

[QP!]

Trump Bond will be rejected, is my supposition based on the new issues posed by this bonding company.

The Shady Company Backing Trump’s Bond May Never Actually Pay Up
The parent company of Knight Specialty Insurance Company is set up in a way that will make it hard to collect the bond.

The financial backer covering Donald Trump’s $175 million bank fraud bond has already been revealed as a “king of subprime car loans” with sketchy business practices. But the financial situation behind the dubiously leveraged suretor, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, has gotten even more complicated: Apparently, its parent company is located in the Cayman Islands, a popular tax haven for corporations and the ultrarich.

That should ring alarm bells for the New York attorney general’s office, according to former industry regulators who spoke with The Daily Beast, since the locale not only allows companies to skirt taxes but also allows them to minimize oversight and evade some U.S. regulations—all things that could potentially make collecting the cash even harder.

“This just stinks to high heaven,” former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones told the Beast.

“Taken in its totality, this dog does not hunt. Along every step of the way, this purported bond is problematic. It’s just one issue after another that calls into question whether this bond could ever possibly satisfy the judgment,” said Jones.

At the center of the fiasco is one key question: Can the suretor actually pay up? Previous analyses of Knight indicate that the answer might be no.

In a court filing last week, Knight revealed that its liquid assets don’t meet the needs of Trump’s already minimized bond. According to a financial assessment, the company, owned by billionaire Don Hankey, had just $138 million in “surplus.” Knight would therefore need to spend 127 percent of its reserves in order to cover Trump’s bond—far more than the 10 percent of a state-regulated suretor’s surplus that’s allowed by New York law....

For those who do not understand the purpose of the Bond, it is to MAKE CERTAIN that the winner of the case does not have to chase their money at the Appeals close.

If you think it about it in its most basic terms, where you and another person fight in court over who should have possession of $100,000 but it is currently in your opponents possession and you then WIN in court, why would you let the LOSER of the case hold the money for years, while an appeal is heard?

When you win the 1st case the court is saying 'we find it is yours', and if you let the LOSER hold it, they have high incentive to blow it all. So in the loss they are supposed to give it over to you because IT IS YOURS. But if they appeal, the court says 'ok, but put the money in trust', which is the ONLY THING that makes logical sense.

Letting the LOSER hold it for years gives them high incentive to blow it (spite, revenge or negligence) and just claim bankruptcy after. Go to Vegas and put it all on red or black and try to double it as you lose nothing, really, in a loss.


That is why the WINNER has the last sign off an accepting a Bond company, or not, if they do not meet requirements, and there is no way I see Letitia James accepting this bond company UNLESS they post 100% of the cash (or a cash equivalent) in trust with the courts. They WILL NOT simply accept a Bond paper as a promise, from this company.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Since the so-called bonding company has never applied for a license to operate in the State Of New York, I do see how they are even able to accept the Bond as legal or binding.

I do not know New York law, but here in Texas, the Surety Company must obtain a general lines property and casualty agent license from Texas Department of Insurance to represent a corporate surety.

 

[QP!]

Since the so-called bonding company has never applied for a license to operate in the State Of New York, I do see how they are even able to accept the Bond as legal or binding.

I do not know New York law, but here in Texas, the Surety Company must obtain a general lines property and casualty agent license from Texas Department of Insurance to represent a corporate surety.

I think as long as the company posting the Bond can PROVE the Bind has backing, that ultimately satisfies the WINNER in the case, that is enough.

In this case, i think that means the Bond company needs to put up cash, or cash equivalents and if they do that, fine.

As the WINNER of the case i want a Bond. E Jean is thrilled that Trump put up $5MM cash for her first win, and that Chubb posted $80MM for her second as that means she will never have to chase a penny.

If i sue a dead beat, and their parent wants to post a Bond that is cash or a cash equivalent, i am thrilled for them to do so, so i am not forced to chase the deadbeat.

That is why ultimately the sign off of the WINNER is key, as this is meant to improve their chances of collecting.

 

[Nordberg]

I think as long as the company posting the Bond can PROVE the Bind has backing, that ultimately satisfies the WINNER in the case, that is enough.

In this case, i think that means the Bond company needs to put up cash, or cash equivalents and if they do that, fine.

As the WINNER of the case i want a Bond. E Jean is thrilled that Trump put up $5MM cash for her first win, and that Chubb posted $80MM for her second as that means she will never have to chase a penny.

If i sue a dead beat, and their parent wants to post a Bond that is cash or a cash equivalent, i am thrilled for them to do so, so i am not forced to chase the deadbeat.

That is why ultimately the sign off of the WINNER is key, as this is meant to improve their chances of collecting.

It is not enough. They have to be a legal bonding company in NY. It would be easy to get the credentials if they have the cash and can be trusted.

 

[QP!]

It is not enough. They have to be a legal bonding company in NY. It would be easy to get the credentials if they have the cash and can be trusted.

Yes, i know that. I was explaining why the WINNER would not care that much.

If i beat a deadbeat in court for $1MM and they cannot put the money up and my chances of collection are minimal, i do not care who puts up the bond, as long as the bond is verified and i will be assured to get my money, when i win the appeal.


For the system to say, sorry the Bond company has the cash, but they are not registered properly so you will have to chase the deadbeat and HOPE to get paid, would be counter productive.

IF Trumps bond company put up CASH or a cash equivalent in Trust, i think that should easily suffice.

Remember the purpose of the Bond is simply to 'Insure the Judgement can be paid', so once that is achieved other factors should be waivable IMO.