It is to laugh. 
Posted on 02/18/2024 5:45:14 AM PST by devane617
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) addressed New York business owners in a new interview and told them there was “nothing to worry about” after former President Trump was hit with a $355 million fine and the inability to conduct business in New York for three years.
Hochul joined John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on WABC 770 AM where she was asked if other New York businesspeople should be worried that if “they can do that to the former president, they can do that to anybody.”
“I think that this is really an extraordinary unusual circumstance that the law-abiding and rule-following New Yorkers who are business people have nothing to worry about because they’re very different than Donald Trump and his behavior,” Hochul responded.
A New York judge on Friday ordered Trump to pay the massive sum in penalties in a civil fraud case. The decision came just weeks after closing arguments wrapped up a months-long trial after New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sued Trump for alleging he falsely altered his net worth to receive tax and insurance benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
You mad, Democrat Party operative bro?
Lying? You posted the link. The link had the original article embedded in it. I just cut and pasted from it. So you’re the operative and based on your claim note that the Gateway Pundit is a dem operative too.
Just follow the links. Just follow the links.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4224882/posts?page=114#114
The Democrat operative, gettin' the Last Word in on The Boss:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4224882/posts?page=117#117
I personally think that The Eye of Scrutiny is upon you as a NeverTrumping POC - and a mouthy one, at that.
You have to understand that "freeper" joesbucks is a Democrat Party operative who is here to lie about Trump and to smear Trump whenever possible.
It is not exactly a new phenomenon, and a semi-sentient being can see where Joe lies. Oh! A double entendre.
The victim was the marketplace.
Your remarkable sense of humor is exceeded only by Judge Engoron. The only thing that could have enhanced Judge Engoron's opinion would have been an inclusion of a torso pic.
Loans are not extended on the collateral appraisal of the loan requester. They are made on the collateral appraisal of the loan giver.
To dumb it down, at a pawn shop, the loan given is not based on your evaluation of your tricycle, but is based on the pawn broker's evaluation of your tricycle.
Engoron at 81-82:
DISGORGEMENT OF ILL-GOTTEN GAINS[W]here, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
People v Ernst & Young, LLP, 114 AD3d 569 (1st Dept 2014) (disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”) (internal citations omitted); see also People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130 (SDNY 2021) (“Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive and other relief,” and finding “the Attorney General can seek disgorgement of profits on the State’s behalf”). Indeed, the last sentence of Executive Law § 63(12) clearly contemplates disgorgement (“all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision”).
It is to laugh.
Basically, it sounds to me like a made-up punishment for a made-up crime, wrapped around twisted interpretations of law to satisfy a twisted interpretation of the crime.
It was not even a made-up crime. It was a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. Trump was not found guilty, but he was found liable, pre-trial. There is no alleged crime.
Engoron at 5:
In a 35-page Decision and Order, dated September 26, 2023, this Court granted plaintiff summary judgment only on liability and only on the first cause of action.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991862/engoron-decision-and-order-september-26.pdf
Full 35-page decision and order from September 26, 2023.
September Decision + Order on Motions at 2:
Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part, and plaintiff's motion for sanctions is granted in part, all as detailed herein.
The Decision and Order on (pre-trial) Motions decided Trump was liable.
September Decision + Order on Motions at 26:
From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar·a·Lago at between $18 million and $27.6 million. NYSCEF Doc. No. 905.Notwithstanding, the SFCs' values do not reflect these land use restrictions. Donald Trump's SFCs for 201 1-2021 value Mar-a-Lago at between $426,529,614 million and $612,110,496, an overvaluation of at least 2,300%, compared to the assessor's appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. Nos.769-779.
A county appraiser typically determines fair market value (FMV) and establishes assessed value for tax purposes as a percentage of the FMV. In addition, Florida law caps the annual increase of the assessed value to a couple of percent. If Trump increased the value of Mar·a·Lago by hundreds of millions, as he did, the assessed value would still only increase by a few percent a year. The assessed value does not begin to approximate the fair market value of the property.
For clarification, the highest court in the state of New York is the New York Court of Appeals in Albany, the capital of New York State. That is the New York equivalent of the State Supreme Court in other states. The Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, lies at the bottom of the hierarchy. It is a trial court, prominently featured in Law & Order. New York County is Manhattan Island. That is the county name and the city borough name. (Richmond County is Staten Island, Kings County is Brooklyn, Queens is Queens and the Bronx is the Bronx.) Brooklyn and Queens are on Long Island. The Bronx is on the mainland.
There are appellate level courts lower than the New York State Court of Appeals. The New York nomenclature for its courts is thoroughly confusing for the unaware.
For a Federal comparison, this is like something done at the District Court level.
James and Engeron said that the crime was the inflation of value of collateral in a loan. Do you agree with that?
While they did speak to inflation of value of collateral, I cannot agree with the words "the crime." The case involves civil fraud, not criminal fraud.
I believe that the case, as brought by partisan prosecutor and overseen by partisan judge, could be used to convict many or most of the large businesses in New York. It will be appealed and will be struck down. The judgment does not have a hope in hell of surviving appeal. I believe the real goal of the litigation is to survive until election day.
Furthermore, James and Engeron said that based on the inflated collateral, President Trump received an interest rate that the ordinary person could not receive. Is that a correct recollection?
That is correct. For example, see Engoron at 47:
McCarty further testified that defendants profited by paying a lower interest rate on the 40 Wall Street Ladder Capital loan based on a fraudulent SFC than the interest rate with a non-recourse loan, and he compared the terms of the then-existing Capital One non-recourse loan that 40 Wall Street was subject to before refinancing, with the terms extended by Ladder Capital.McCarty’s calculations determined that Donald Trump improperly saved the following amounts on interest as a result of the banks relying on Donald Trump’s fraudulent SFCs and personal guarantee: (1) $72,908,308 from 2014-2022 on the Doral loan; (2) $53,423,209 from 2015-2022 on the Old Post Office loan; (3) $17,443,359 from 2014-2022 on the Chicago loan; and (4) $24,265,291 from 2015-2022 on the 40 Wall Street loan. PX 3302.
The problem would be that banks do not blindly accept an applicant's assessments. It is nonsense to say that banks made loans relying on Trump's assessments. The do their own assesments as part of their due diligence. All the banks determined the loans were good business, all were paid on time, and all made handsome profits.
If you agree that the alleged crime was inflation of collateral value, don't most negotiations start with high/low estimates and then the parties meet in the middle? Isn't that the basis of game theory, that the sides will come to a mutually-satisfying middle where everyone walks away with something they can claim as a "win?" Did James and Engoron just criminalize negotiations?
Considering the mainstream coverage of this, I have complete understanding if one believes that Trump was found guilty of some crime. Forgive me for persisting that there is no crime alleged. It is strictly a non-criminal case. As for the collateral value, each bank would be required to do its own due diligence and independently assess the value of the offered collateral. They did, they all agreed with Trump, more or less, and they all made money.
Alina Habba:
The Attorney General filed this case under a consumer protection statute that denies the right to a jury. There was never an option to choose a jury trial. It is unfortunate that a jury won’t be able to hear how absurd the merits of this case are and conclude no wrongdoing ever happened.
You were pretty clear in describing what Engoron used to justify the engorgement; what can you say about the crime itself?
Pardon the repetition, but there is not even an alleged crime. As a clarification, Trump was accused of improper engorgement, and Engoron justified disgorgement, the giving up of the alleged ill-gotten gain.
If 63(12) specifically says "Notwithstanding any law to the contrary....
This case involves disgorgement. Disgorgement is separate from restitution to a victim. Disgorgement need not involve an award of damages to a victim. It involves requiring the wrongdoer to cough up ill gotten gains. There need be no proof of any money lost by any victim.
Engoron at 81-82:
DISGORGEMENT OF ILL-GOTTEN GAINS[W]here, as here, there is a claim based on fraudulent activity, disgorgement may be available as an equitable remedy, notwithstanding the absence of loss to individuals or independent claims for restitution. Disgorgement is distinct from the remedy of restitution because it focuses on the gain to the wrongdoer as opposed to the loss to the victim. Thus, disgorgement aims to deter wrongdoing by preventing the wrongdoer from retaining ill-gotten gains from fraudulent conduct. Accordingly, the remedy of disgorgement does not require a showing or allegation of direct losses to consumers or the public; the source of the ill-gotten gains is “immaterial.”
People v Ernst & Young, LLP, 114 AD3d 569 (1st Dept 2014) (disgorgement is not impermissible penalty “since the wrongdoer who is deprived of an illicit gain is ideally left in the position he would have been had there been no misconduct”) (internal citations omitted); see also People v Amazon.com, Inc., 550 F Supp 3d 122, 130 (SDNY 2021) (“Executive Law § 63(12) authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive and other relief,” and finding “the Attorney General can seek disgorgement of profits on the State’s behalf”). Indeed, the last sentence of Executive Law § 63(12) clearly contemplates disgorgement (“all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision”).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disgorgement
disgorgementDisgorgement is a remedy requiring a party who profits from illegal or wrongful acts to give up any profits they made as a result of that illegal or wrongful conduct. The purpose of this remedy is to prevent unjust enrichment and make illegal conduct unprofitable.
As seen in SEC v. First Jersey Securities, Inc, district courts have wide discretion over whether they will mandate disgorgement in a given case as well as how much money must be disgorged.
[Last updated in September of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]
Alternate link for SEC v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. First Jersey is a Federal case, but its observations on disgorgement are generally the same as the observations in New York.
SEC v. First Jersey Securities, Inc,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff-appellee, v. First Jersey Securities, Inc. and Robert E. Brennan,defendants-appellants, 101 F.3d 1450 (2d Cir. 1996)
Defendants challenge all aspects of the relief ordered by the district court. They contend principally that the injunction and order of disgorgement were improper because the SEC failed to prove that such relief is necessary to prevent future violations; in addition, Brennan contends that he should not be held liable for the full amount of the disgorgement ordered. Defendants also contend that the award of prejudgment interest was unjustified and that the appointment of a Special Agent was impermissible. We find merit only in the challenge to the appointment of the Special Agent.Once the district court has found federal securities law violations, it has broad equitable power to fashion appropriate remedies, including ordering that culpable defendants disgorge their profits. See, e.g., SEC v. Lorin, 76 F.3d 458, 461-62 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 1995); SEC v. Manor Nursing Centers, Inc., 458 F.2d 1082, 1104 (2d Cir. 1972). The primary purpose of disgorgement as a remedy for violation of the securities laws is to deprive violators of their ill-gotten gains, thereby effectuating the deterrence objectives of those laws. See, e.g., SEC v. Wang, 944 F.2d 80, 85 (2d Cir. 1991); SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 102 (2d Cir. 1978). "The effective enforcement of the federal securities laws requires that the SEC be able to make violations unprofitable. The deterrent effect of an SEC enforcement action would be greatly undermined if securities law violators were not required to disgorge illicit profits." SEC v. Manor Nursing Centers, Inc., 458 F.2d at 1104; see SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 446 F.2d 1301, 1308 (2d Cir. 1971) ("It would severely defeat the purposes of the Act if a violator of Rule 10b-5 were allowed to retain the profits from his violation.").
The district court has broad discretion not only in determining whether or not to order disgorgement but also in calculating the amount to be disgorged. See, e.g., SEC v. Lorin, 76 F.3d at 462. The amount of disgorgement ordered "need only be a reasonable approximation of profits causally connected to the violation," SEC v. Patel, 61 F.3d at 139 (internal quotation marks omitted); "any risk of uncertainty [in calculating disgorgement] should fall on the wrongdoer whose illegal conduct created that uncertainty," id. at 140 (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the district court's order of disgorgement for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., SEC v. Posner, 16 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1077, 115 S. Ct. 724, 130 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1995).
[...]
Defendants also contend that disgorgement is not needed to reimburse defrauded customers because defendants settled a class action, without objection by the SEC, brought by and on behalf of those customers. This argument too is wide of the mark. Since disgorgement is a method of forcing a defendant to give up the amount by which he was unjustly enriched, it is unlike an award of damages, see, e.g., SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d at 102, and is neither foreclosed nor confined by an amount for which injured parties were willing to settle. A settlement payment may properly, however, be taken into account by the court in calculating the amount to be disgorged, and the district court did so here. It acknowledged the $5 million that defendants paid in settlement of the class action but found that the unlawful profits gained by defendants in the six securities at issue here exceeded $27 million. It was well within the court's discretion to give defendants credit for the $5 million paid out to reimburse victims of their frauds and to require defendants to disgorge the rest of those profits. We also conclude that the amount of disgorgement ordered is a reasonable approximation of First Jersey's unlawful profits from its fraudulent transactions and is not punitive in nature.
Maybe you can explain to me why this was an appropriate use of the law, and why it was appropriate to ignore the legislative constraints on the penalties?
I rather doubt that anyone can, in good faith, explain why this was an appropriate use of the law. Rather, this use of the law appears to be part of a lawfare effort to abuse and misuse the legal system to affect the 2024 presidential election.
The victimless disgorgement is not a penalty. There is no crime and it is not a punative measure. Disgorgement is intended to force a wrongdoer to disgorge ill-gotten gains to leave the wrongdoer in the same position he would have been had his wrongful behavior not resulted in ill-gotten gains.
The disgorgement need not rely upon the existence of a victim. The payment need not go to a victim. The government may establish that there was an ill-gotten gain which must be disgorged to show that crime does not pay. The apparent justification for disgorgement in Trump is to prevent him from continiuing a pattern of wrongful behavior resulting in ill-gotten gain. The money would not go to a victim as there is no victim.
The real problem is the evaluation of what profits were wrongfully obtained as a result of the banks allegedly relying on alleged or actual inaccurate value claims by Trump for collateral. What is the fair market value of a bored ape non-fungible token? It is whatever some dumb twit is willing to pay for it. That is essentially unknown and unknowable until someone sells a particular bored ape NFT, and then known for that moment only. So far, a Bored Ape NFT has sold for over $3.4 million. They have slightly devalued.
Justin Bieber’s Bored Ape NFT was valued at $1.3 million in 2022—now it’s only worth around $60,000Published Fri, Jul 7 2023
Cheyenne DeVon
CNBC
Using the tax assessor assessed value from prevous years as the current fair market value is an absurdity. As may be seen, a property could devalue rapidly. It could increase in value also. Mar·a·Lago with its 128-room mansion was given to the Federal government in 1973 by Marjorie Merriwether Post. Building was completed in 1927 for $7 million. That translates to about $120 million in today's inflated dollars. In 1981, the government returned it to the Post Foundation due to the maintenance cost.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/home-decor/a7144/mar-a-lago-history/
A History of Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump's Palm Beach HomeBy Sam Dangremond and Leena Kim
Published: Jun 13, 2023 12:59 PM EST[excerpt]
It is, by most accounts, a profitable business. Trump made $15.6 million from the club in 2014. His first year in office, he made $25.1 million. Last year, that number dipped slightly to $21.4 million.
When a property is bringing in a profit of $20M a year, it is a little ridiculous for a court to hold that its value is $27M. But since the first tax asessment, the assessed value is subject to 3% a year increase cap imposed by Florida state law.
In all probability, the value Trump claimed is closer than the value Judge Engoron used.
I’ll be amused to see the spinning and the lies that our FR Democrat operative uses to try to weasel his way out of addressing your actual post here.
First, you are correct that I repeatedly said "crime" when it was a civil case. That was sloppy of me. Am I wrong to sense from your post that you disagree with this use of the law and its application to President Trump?
Second, you speak of:
Trump was accused of improper engorgement, and Engoron justified disgorgement, the giving up of the alleged ill-gotten gain...Can they use a civil statute that requires multiple victims to disgorge profits that do not require any victims?This case involves disgorgement. Disgorgement is separate from restitution to a victim. Disgorgement need not involve an award of damages to a victim. It involves requiring the wrongdoer to cough up ill gotten gains. There need be no proof of any money lost by any victim.
See 63(12):
Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business...From my reading of 63(12), a fraudulent "scheme" must be perpetrated on at least two victims in order for this statute to apply. Was that the case with Trump? Trump was engaging in a "persistent... scheme" to defraud multiple banks?The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provisions.
The term "persistent fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term "repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than one person.
Third, regarding the SEC securities fraud cases (and others), were these criminal cases or also civil cases? Is disgorgement only used in criminal cases or can they be used in civil cases, too? It seems to me that a disgorgement in a civil case is an illegal civil forfeiture in that the person is not found guilty of a crime. I would think that proper criminal due process should be afforded to President Trump before half a billion dollars can be confiscated from him.
I know you addressed the first part of my question regarding "Notwithstanding any law to the contrary..." but the second part of that sentence refers to how the penalty for 63(12) is to be carried out.
I read a lot of articles that discuss the phrase "shall be" in law as a requirement that must be obeyed. How can Engoron say that this is an engorgement case when the law says it is a restitution case?
What happens when the civil statute explicitly says:
"Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, all monies recovered or obtained under this subdivision by a state agency or state official or employee acting in their official capacity shall be subject to subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law."
Subdivision eleven of section four of the state finance law says nothing about disgorgement. 11(b) refers to "moneys to be distributed solely or exclusively as a payment of damages or restitution to individuals or entities that were specifically injured or harmed by the defendant's or settling party's conduct," which is what 63(12) states as the reason for its existence as a consumer protection statute. Doesn't this give needed context to the intent of 63(12) and any penalties that might result from it? Can Engoron ignore this and decide on his own that it is an engorgement case when the legislature made it a consumer protection law? Isn't he legislating from the bench by doing this?
Finally, regarding your discussion on valuation and appraisal, did you see my prior posts in other threads with the John Lennon example? Let me repost it here for discussion:
President Trump has said in the past that he has "brand value" that makes Trump properties more valuable just because it's a Trump property.I hypothesized that if I had not sold the guitar but used it instead as collateral for a loan, I would be guilty under the "Trump" use of this law. Would you agree?As a case in point, in 2015 John Lennon's 1962 J-160E Gibson acoustic guitar was sold at an auction in Beverly Hills, California for $2.41 million. The catalog price for that guitar in 1964 was $219.50 and the current value of one in excellent condition is $4,000.
If I had owned that guitar in 2015 and chose not to auction it and instead used it as collateral for a loan claiming a value of $2.5 million, would Letitia James sue me because the real value of the guitar is $4,000?
Does John Lennon's "brand" add $2 million to the value of the guitar?
If the auction had taken place at Sotheby's New York instead of in California, could James have sued Sotheby's for fraudulently inflating the bidding on a $4,000 guitar? Could any old furniture or jewelry that has provenance be disgorged in New York, because the items can't be inflated based on who owned them previously or it's fraud?
-PJ
What makes me not a liberal plant or democratic operative as claimed is I hold the same conclusion if this were the Biden's, Clinton's, Obama's, Pelosi's, Schumer's, AOC's, Talib's or some other democrat/liberal.
What makes me not a liberal plant
No, you are not a liberal plant...YOU ARE A COO COO BIRD, LOOKING FOR A HOME.
joe, try to get some sleep. If you think the Left, along with Joe Biden are what the Country needs...YOU NEED HELP
To make America Great Again, what has to happen/change and what was the last date of greatness?
What our FR Democrat operative fails to mention in his "whataboutism" argument is that charges would have never been brought against the Bidens, Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis, Schumers, AOCs or Talibs in the first place.
This small omission allows him to continue lying about Trump and attacking Trump - deceiving only the gullible.
How do you come to this conclusion when both parties walked away from the deal satisfied? Who's to say that the deal wouldn't have happened at a higher interest rate?
Suppose you were trying to sell a used car for $10,000 but I was only willing to pay $7,500 for it. Suppose we agreed on a price of $8,000 for the car.
Is it your position that your family (your "marketplace) would be mad at you because you "lost" $2,000 when you actually gained $8,000?
What if Trump were to walk away from the deal at the higher interest rate and go to another bank? Wouldn't the owners/stockholders theoretically lose ALL of the interest in this case?
If you held to your $10,000 value on your used car and I walked away from the deal, would your family say that you "lost" $10,000 when you actually lost nothing?
Regarding the bank's interest rate, didn't the banks say that the rate was tiered and it didn't matter what Trump's appraisal was in the sense that the tier was wide enough that the same rate would have applied at a larger or lower valuation of collateral?
-PJ
In addition, I'm no fan of taxes, yet the state lost out on the taxes that could have been generated had the loans been made at the cost that was appropriate for the true value of the assets. As for Trump going to another bank, Deutsche Bank was one of the few banks willing to do business with Trump. But let's say he could, had he presented the same financials cooked up by Betty Crocker he still would have messed with the marketplace. Unless the other banks rates were lower. Of they could have been higher. And that's the marketplace.
I thought there was a reference to tiered rates, but I can’t find it. While I seem to remember something about them, I don’t remember if they said there would be no impact because he would have still fallen into the tier he was assigned or if he would have moved to the next.
I would have access to Kelly Blue Book and would have a general knowledge of the resale price of your car. We would both be starting with information that would lead us to a negotiated middle price. I would also want you to agree to let a mechanic inspect your car before I bought it. Wouldn't that be similar to a bank doing their own appraisal before offering an interest rate?
In addition, I'm no fan of taxes, yet the state lost out on the taxes that could have been generated had the loans been made at the cost that was appropriate for the true value of the assets.
The state lost nothing because the bank lost nothing. You don't tax opportunity cost (the gain or loss by doing something else instead).
I mentioned that the bank said that their rate is tiered with a wide range, and it didn't matter that Trump's indicated value was much higher than the banks value. They said the same rate would have been applied had the value been higher or lower, so they lost nothing.
This is not like you or I getting a mortgage rate from a bank where small ranges in loan amounts trigger the next rate; this is mega-capital financing that only a very few people engage in. The rules are different when borrowing half a billion dollars. The banks said that the rate wouldn't have changed, so they lost nothing. Also, part of the deal was that Trump maintain accounts at the bank with millions of dollars in them, so the bank made additional interest income on Trump's additional deposits.
“We expect clients provided information to be accurate,” Williams testified. “At the same time, it’s not an industry standard that these financial statements are audited they largely reliant on the use of estimate. That said, we account for that and make some adjustments as a conservative measure.”In 2013, Deutsche Bank also adjusted Trump’s operating cash flow to a negative $26 million but Williams said, “It’s not unusual for high net worth individuals’ cash flow to vary from year to year positives and negatives...”
“Generally speaking. a payment default is more material fault than a covenant default speaks definitely to the prepayment of the loan,” Williams said.
It’s been established that Trump did not default on the loan payments. Trump has since paid off all of the company’s outstanding loans with Deutsche Bank. Suarez reviewed with Williams loan documents for Doral Golf Resort & Spa, the Old Post Office and Trump’s Chicago property that showed the loans were renegotiated at points during the life of the loan to reduce or remove Trump’s personal guaranty. Trump paid fees to the bank and kept millions in Deutsche Bank accounts per those agreements that lowered his personal liability... Williams said Deutsche Bank offers flexible loan terms to clients like Trump to benefit their business strategy to “grow [their] noncredit relationship with the firm.”
They prioritize high net worth client’s “broader relationship” with the bank, he said.
-PJ
Me, too. I'm still looking.
In the meantime, I posted something else to you.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.