E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[chancery]

<sigh>

No money or other property has been "posted." Chubb (actually its subsidiary, Federal Insurance Company) has filed its undertaking to be "firmly bound" to pay the amount of the judgement and accrued interest, up to the "Maximum Penal Sum, $91,630,000, in the event Trump loses his appeal.

There is a 15-day window for Trump to pay the judgment himself before Carroll can seek payment from Federal. Sometimes it's more convenient, e.g., for tax or contractual reasons, for a judgment-debtor to raise the money separately instead of allowing the collateral to be foreclosed.

Is it more like an insurance policy that Trump took out, and, if he loses, the policy from Chubb will pay, and he is just out the premium he paid?

<taps the sign> The surety business is not at all like property insurance. Surety companies are not engaged in a risk-arbitrage business based on their assessment of the strength of the appeal. Judgment bonds are fully collateralized, which means that every penny of what Federal will pay come from Trump's pocket.*

Or does Trump have to pay the judgement from his own assets, letting Chubb off the hook and pocketing the premium he paid.

Trump could choose to pay the judgment, to avoid foreclosure of the collateral (see above). But Trump pocket the premium? No. The premium is not refundable under any ordinary circumstance.**

For that matter, did Chubb have to actually deposit the $94M with the court, or is it just a binding contract to pay, in the event the OSG loses?

See above: it's a binding contract. Federal Insurance Company's surety business is regulated by the Treasury Department. If it doesn't pay, it's out of business.

______
* Federal's 2% premium compensates it for taking the small risk that something funky might happen to the collateral, in this case, the assets in Trump's Charles Schwab account.

** Hard to imagine what could lead to a claim for return of premium. Insurance companies occasionally go out of business on account of insider fraud, and that's a circumstance that could lead to claims for return of premiums, claims that would likely be uncollectible.

[sugar magnolia]

I think he meant that Chubb would pocket the premium.

[chancery]

Thanks Sugar, you're correct; I misread that part of noblepa's post.

Further to my previous post:

Federal's 2% premium compensates it for taking the small risk that something funky might happen to the collateral, in this case, the assets in Trump's Charles Schwab account.

The most likely funky thing that could happen is Trump filing bankruptcy (or being thrown into bankruptcy involuntarily). IANABkL, and collateral disputes in bankruptcy happen all the time. However, in general, the collateral becomes part of the debtor's estate. Secured creditors generally go to the front of the line in bankruptcies, but they have to move for relief from the automatic stay, and maybe go through other hoops. There would certainly be delay and expense. And maybe even risk. If the security interest was created shortly before the bankruptcy, there would be preference issues, which would be bad for the secured claim.

Federal presumably evaluated these risks before agreeing to write the bond. It would be fascinating to know how they assessed the situation, but we're unlikely to find out.

Edited to add some additional thoughts.

[Reality Check]

______
* Federal's 2% premium compensates it for taking the small risk that something funky might happen to the collateral, in this case, the assets in Trump's Charles Schwab account.

At first I thought that was a small premium for what could be an appeal running over a year but it's not like buying a bond where you are actually without the money until the bond matures. Federal is not out any money during the appeal and is using Trump's collateral to back up the bond. Most of their expenses are just for writing contracts and having people to assess risk and evaluate the collateral being provided. The premium is probably paid up front so once a bond is issued they can move on to the next one and earn another premium. There is probably a minimum amount of capital required to cover the odd ball cases that end in bankruptcy or some other less than ideal outcome. Sounds like a good business plan to me.

[much ado]

______
* Federal's 2% premium compensates it for taking the small risk that something funky might happen to the collateral, in this case, the assets in Trump's Charles Schwab account.

At first I thought that was a small premium for what could be an appeal running over a year but it's not like buying a bond where you are actually without the money until the bond matures. Federal is not out any money during the appeal and is using Trump's collateral to back up the bond. Most of their expenses are just for writing contracts and having people to assess risk and evaluate the collateral being provided. The premium is probably paid up front so once a bond is issued they can move on to the next one and earn another premium. There is probably a minimum amount of capital required to cover the odd ball cases that end in bankruptcy or some other less than ideal outcome. Sounds like a good business plan to me.

Is any financial transaction involving Trump that requires him to pay up at some point a good business plan?

Just asking...

[Reality Check]

Is any financial transaction involving Trump that requires him to pay up at some point a good business plan?

Just asking...

I am speaking in the general case and not the particular. This may be one bond where it is good to carry that reserve fund. That's why Chubb felt the need to issue that sheepish letter to its shareholders.

[MN-Skeptic]

‘Treating the court like a campaign event’: Carroll lawyers eviscerate Trump’s demand for new defamation trial

Donald Trump‘s “great difficulty” in refraining from making defamatory statements about writer E. Jean Carroll and from casting doubt on whether he sexually assaulted her is so “particularly acute,” according to the writer’s lawyers, that the court must reject the former president’s request for a new defamation trial and cast aside his assertions on appeal that the jury received erroneous instruction.

This request came in a thorough 44-page motion eviscerating Trump’s attempts to totally rejigger his trial defeat in January.

Trump defamed the writer in 2019 when he was still president. He made two statements within a day denying that he had sexually assaulted and threatened her and accused her of fabricating her claims so she could sell her books. At the first trial, it was decided that Trump’s defamatory statements damaged her, and the question remained of how much those damages might cost. At the second trial, it was determined that he made the statements with common law malice and an award was set after brief deliberations.

The $83.3 million defamation award ordered was “entirely in support of her case,” and the jury had flatly rejected Trump’s assertions too about being engaged in some kind of “political conspiracy,” Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan wrote.

Much more at the link above.

Link to the memorandum - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... -new-trial

[MN-Skeptic]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports

Breaking

Trump LOSES his bid for a new trial or a judgment overturning the more than $80 million verdict for E. Jean Carroll in the second trial.

Note:

Trump's appeal before the Second Circuit in the E. Jean Carroll litigation remains pending.

This ruling, marking the latest setback in his effort to overturn it, is from the trial court.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .338.0.pdf

[Sam the Centipede]

That ruling is made with very large boots stamping on Trump and his attorneys with great enthusiasm.

Judge Kaplan was not impressed, not one iota, by the Trump gang's whining.

[chancery]

The decision is full of delightful takedowns. The best is this (emphasis in original, most footnotes omitted):

But beyond his out-of-court statements disparaging Ms. Carroll during trial — many of which were introduced in evidence the jury could have found that Mr. Trump’s demeanor and conduct in the courtroom itself put his hatred and disdain on full display. Mr. Trump could be heard repeatedly complaining to his counsel about the proceedings, so much so that plaintiff’s counsel twice requested that the Court instruct him to stop. In particular, during Ms. Carroll’s testimony, the jury could have found, Mr. Trump could be heard making audible comments that Ms. Carroll’s testimonywas false, that the proceedings were a “witch hunt” and a “con job,” and most notably, that his earlier statements disparaging Ms. Carroll were “true.” {Footnote 44} And, most dramatically, mere minutes after plaintiff’s counsel began her closing argument, Mr. Trump conspicuously stood and walked out of the courtroom for no apparent reason save to evidence his disapproval, though he was present again when Court resumed later that morning and remained for his own counsel’s entire summation.

On this exceptional record, the punitive damages evidence passes constitutional
muster.

_________________
44. ... When the Court issued its second warning to Mr. Trump concerning his actions and cautioned that they might result in him being excluded from the courtroom, Mr. Trump silenced any doubt as to his intentions by responding “I would love it.”

[AndyinPA]

His current lawyers must have come down on him hard in the NYC/Bragg case. He tried pushing back a little at the beginning, but he's showing a little more restraint in the hush money trial. I don't know how long that lasts, but I think the lawyers have put a little of the fear of gawd into him.

[raison de arizona]

His current lawyers must have come down on him hard in the NYC/Bragg case. He tried pushing back a little at the beginning, but he's showing a little more restraint in the hush money trial. I don't know how long that lasts, but I think the lawyers have put a little of the fear of gawd into him.

Eh. Judge Merchan has had to ask him to take his seat at least once that I recall. Among other talking out and crap he's pulled.

[bob]

On this exceptional record, the punitive damages evidence passes constitutional muster.

It has been widely predicted the appellate court, citing due process concerns, will give the punitive damages a haircut.

The district court made a nice record anticipating this and said, "Nope; this is an extraordinary case that requires an extraordinary remedy."

The appellate court may still trim, but it'll have to work harder to come to that conclusion.