RTH10260 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 2:37 pm No, djt filed a defamation suit personally, so he is personally liable. The golf courses belong to the T Enterprise group, not direct personally owned.
It's true that the owners of corporations (and other limited-liability entities) are not ordinarily liable for the debts of the corporation (or an LLC, etc.), and
vice versa.
However, when a corporation has a single owner which dominates its decision making, uses the corporation for his personal benefit, and disregards corporate formalities, it can be possible for an owner to be liable for the debts of the entity, sometimes called "piercing the corporate veil." Typically there needs to be some kind of fraud or wrongdoing involved, and there can be other requirements as well, depending on the facts of the dispute.
In the civil case before Judge Engoron it appears that Trump was held liable for actions nominally taken by various Trump Organization entities; I don't think (but I haven't checked) that piercing the corporate veil for those purposes was seriously disputed.
Holding an
entity liable for the actions of its owner, so that there is no legal distinction between them for any purpose, is a harder thing to do. It might be possible here -- Trump possibly doesn't keep any more of his wealth in his own name than he needs for immediate purposes -- but it would take some doing. I dunno.
He would have to have a bank account or stocks deposited in a British bank to get frozen.
![Finger Wag :fingerwag:](./images/smilies/naughty.gif)
Not at all. Foreign judgments can be and routinely are enforced in United States courts, although there are a couple of hoops to jump through. It's not as simple as enforcing in one of the 50 states a judgment rendered in a different state.
For example, the judgment creditor must show that the judgment was obtained from a fair and impartial judicial system and the underlying claim was not repugnant to New York public policy. The grounds for non-enforcement are set out in N.Y. CPLR § 5304, and they can sometimes provide fertile ground for defensive litigation.
https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/c ... e-53/5304/
Judgments from the UK typically pass this test and are usually enforced without much trouble in New York State, but there can be scope for the debtor to impose some cost and delay on the creditor. And occasionally there will be a quirk in UK substantive law or procedure that gives a New York judge pause, but it would be unusual for a New York court to deny enforcement to a UK judgment.
I note that the original post states that the UK judge "ordered Donald Trump to pay Orbis an initial £300k in costs." A foreign judgment must be final, conclusive and enforceable where it was issued to be recognized in New York. Orbis might have to wait for the conclusion of any appeal proceedings before proceeding against Trump's New York assets.
Also, the public policy of New York State does not provide that, in a defamation action, an unsuccessful plaintiff must pay the defendant's legal fees as a matter of course. UK law is notoriously different; all unsuccessful plaintiffs must pay the defendant's legal fees. Whether the UK law on legal fees is is not merely inconsistent with the public policy of New York State but is
repugnant to it raises interesting questions that might have been already addressed but that I'm not going to research, except ... hmm, interesting.
In 2008, New York State enacted the
Libel Terrorism Protection Act,* codified in CPLR 5304(b)(9), which provides that New York courts will not recognize a defamation judgment rendered by a foreign court
unless the court before which the matter is brought sitting in this state first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign court's adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by both the United States and New York constitutions.
Section 5304(b)(9) doesn't apply to this case. Trump isn't defending against enforcement of a judgment for libel against him rendered by the UK court.
He could still argue that the "loser pays fees" provision is repugnant to New York public policy, but the fact he voluntarily chose to bring his defamation claim in the UK court system, which he obviously chose because UK courts are friendly to defamation claims, and suffered the well-known consequences of losing such a claim puts him in a particularly weak position. Also, New York courts may already have rejected such claims; I haven't looked.
________
* The act was in response to perceived abuses, such as the facts underlying
Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz, 9 N.Y.3d 501 (2007). In
Ehrenfeld the New York author of a book on terrorism had written that a Saudi businessman provided financial support to
al Qaeda. The author had never lived in the UK and her book had not been published in the UK. The Saudi businessman nonetheless sued the author for libel in London and obtained a judgment. The New York Court of Appeals resolved a different issue against the author, and I haven't seen any indication that this particular judgment was enforced in New York State, but it excited a good deal of alarm.