Good luck to this man.

…

It turns out that Trump may have called in a major favor: Court records filed Friday show that the bond was guaranteed by the Chubb Corporation, an insurance group. In 2018, Trump appointed Chubb’s CEO Evan Greenberg to a White House advisory committee for trade policy and negotiations.

  • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
    1291·
    9 months ago

    Why would any corporation allow this and not instantly fire the CEO?

    “Hey board, I just tied up a huge chunk of cash, with no possible return on investment, did I do good?”

    • tristan@aussie.zone
      676·
      9 months ago

      Given the company is worth over $100b I don’t even think something this value would be mentioned to the board, let alone concern them when they just bought a potential president for cheap

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        13·
        8 months ago

        People would be shocked at how often insurance agencies are the backers/owners of personal loans. It’s a bread and butter investment for them.

      • quindraco
        5·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, talk about an extreme possible return on investment - pocket change for a POTUS.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        4·
        8 months ago

        91 Million is a write-off for them. Not a tax write off (they don’t pay taxes already, obvs), an accounting write-off. Like at the end of the year they just go, “looks like we lost 91 million somehow. Oh well, subtract it from 100 billion and continue laughing

        • OpenStars@startrek.websiteEnglish
          21·
          9 months ago

          They are a Trump appointee… I bet the correlation there between those who, upon being investigated, end up proven dirty, will be astonishingly high.

        • OpenStars@startrek.websiteEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          Uh… no? It seems the price of admission to be Putin’s lapdog though - he will help you, if you help him, but he also wants dirt on you first. He even provided all the necessary materials - the hotel room, prostitutes, camera, and videographer, he’s so helpful that way!:-D

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      16·
      9 months ago

      Probably when trump appointed him he made the company a ton of money. And maybe they are hoping did that again.

    • MyNamesNotRobert@lemmynsfw.com
      9·
      8 months ago

      Ah, yes, the company probably doesn’t even pay a good chunk of their employees a living wage. But they have no problem spending money on stupid shit like this. Classic.

  • solarvector@lemmy.zip
    1131·
    9 months ago

    These kind of favors are never about paying something back, it’s always a perverse version of paying it forward; this bond is only posted because there’s an expected future return on investment.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      20·
      8 months ago

      If Trump wins, we are going to see either vp Evan or evan appointed head of the ftc.

      He’s getting some sort of high level cabinet position for sure.

  • DevCat@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
    461·
    9 months ago

    Five will get you ten, they ask for a government bailout when Trump fails to repay them.

  • trikavanya
    241·
    9 months ago

    So Trump pulled a Chubb out of his pocket . . .

  • just_change_it@lemmy.world
    227·
    9 months ago

    I feel like some people may be mentally damaged or simply lack critical thinking skills. Business is business and this entity obviously already has no qualms doing business with dumpy.

    You get a bond like this contingent on other assets existing plus a fee. He owns real estate. This arrangement lets you leverage the equity in that real estate for a fee while someone else’s cash on hand is used. Let’s be realistic too, there’s next to no way he’s going to pay the full damages because most sane people wouldn’t think any amount of defamation is worth $83m+

    Let’s pretend worse case scenario happens for dumpy and the 83m judgment is sustained and he exhausts all appeals and has to pay all parties for all damages based on all current lawsuits against him… unless he declares bankruptcy and truly loses it all - a thing that seems to have no hope of ever happening given none of the suits are for more money than he controls in assets… it’s all but guaranteed a signed contract will be enforceable should dumpy choose to not pay.

    Ultimately it’s a secured debt. We’ll never know what the terms were from chubb corp.

    • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
      251·
      9 months ago

      No, the whole argument of the damages amount was that it needed to be high enough to actually matter to this particular individual. Are you at all familiar with the case? The court agreed it needed to be high enough to be punitive.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      22·
      8 months ago

      I agree other than

      most sane people wouldn’t think any amount of defamation is worth $83m+

      Maybe not on its own, but remember that the initial award was far less. Then he did it again. The numbers skyrocketed because of punitive damages: basically, what’s an appropriate amount that would stop him (and him specifically) from doing it a third time? If a court were to make me pay, say, everything I have in my savings account I’d think twice about what I do. But my net worth is far less than his is purported to be. With that higher net worth comes higher punitive damages to prevent another occurrence.

    • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
      18·
      9 months ago

      First, the court decided the damages after Trump repeatedly disparaged Ms Carroll, even after having been found guilty of doing so previously. If there is a consensus among legal scholars that the amount will be reduced, I have not seen it. This wasn’t some jury awarding an arbitrary high amount to a sympathetic plaintiff.

      Second, the other offense that Trump has also been found guilty of is inflating the valuation of his real estate holdings, which again is a behavior he has engaged in repeatedly and has even boasted about. When questioned about his net worth, he stated in court that he declares his worth based on his assessment of his brand as Trump, rather than actual real estate values. He’s on the hook for half a billion dollars for that one.

      If the Chubb decision to back this was related to the person’s personal friendship or financial relationship to Trump, then he may be liable to a suit as well, but realistically he’s not putting up his own money. This is a personal friend and confidant of Trump backing Trump’s play. If he accepted the Trump valuation of a property to secure the bond amount, then he’s definitely made himself vulnerable. If it’s based on a realistic valuation, then Chubb is probably off the hook for that.

      Trump’s valuations are just straight up bananas, and he has been found guilty of doing exactly that. I’m looking forward to finding out more about this deal.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    13·
    9 months ago

    He put up a pair of Limited Edition gold colour shoes as collateral for the bond.

  • raynethackery@lemmy.world
    12·
    8 months ago

    We’ll see how this plays out when the stock market reopens Monday. I’m not optimistic they will feel any pain from this.

  • Breezy@lemmy.world
    101·
    9 months ago

    Chubb insurance is for the wealthy, you cant even talk to them unless you’re in the top percentage of people. Its clear from the fraud trial in new york and his lack of ability to pay anyone that trump is no longer wealthy, if he ever was. This is such a lose lose situation.

    • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
      3·
      8 months ago

      I don’t typically consider myself wealthy, but I’ll be canceling the policy that I have with them tomorrow. This just seems like really poor judgment, and I don’t trust that they’re managing their finances well enough to honor their policies.

      • Breezy@lemmy.world
        1·
        8 months ago

        I used to work a bunch with chubb and other insurance companies when i managed restoration jobs. Never had any issues about covering anything, no fighting either, they always took the bill asked 3 questions then approved it. The only other insurance companies that i never saw adjustors trying to skimp was usaa and travelers. This has been six years so things couldve changed.