“But the Trumpian part is that even though, or perhaps because, it may be part of a Trump scam, Knight now too may be on the hook for $175 million as it won’t automatically get out from underneath its own proffered surety.”

Hankey, a billionaire, has already said that his company will be able to post the money for Trump.

He was reacting to a comment on X by lawyer Dave Kingman, who wrote that Knight will not be able to post the $175 million.

“Understand that Knight Specialty has a problem. This bond cannot be approved. Under the CPLR [Civil Practice Laws and Rules] the surety will remain obligated under the bond until a replacement bond is filed. Trump is unlikely to get a replacement bond. Knight Spec will be liable AND Trump won’t have a stay [on enforcement],” he wrote.

  • mephiska
    link
    fedilink
    89 months ago

    A court ruled it’s not valid.

    Has this happened yet? all I’ve seen so far is the court asked the insurance co for more information, but no outright ruling on the validity.

    • @givesomefucksOP
      link
      English
      8
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      A New York court has rejected Knight Specialty’s paperwork and said it wanted to see more information on its financial backing. The company filed new paperwork on April 4.

      It’s my understanding that new paperwork didn’t help anything.

      Like, one of the issues was they weren’t even licensed in NY, I don’t know how paperwork could retroactively make it legal.

      But while they can’t promise to pay it under bond, they did sign something saying they were good for 175 million. And they don’t have it.

      So trump failed to post bond, and now they can seize property.

      I think

      Shits confusing and trump just says anything to delay this stuff. But I think if Knight doesn’t cut a check for cash, they seize property up to what they couldn’t out of the 175 million. Or maybe somehow the whole amount because he couldn’t get the bond.

      • mephiska
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        What’s confusing is these articles are written to sound like these things have happened when really it’s just a quote from some rando who says these things are likely to happen. The court itself has not ruled on or rejected the paperwork yet. If you can find an article after 4/4/24 that says otherwise I’d love to see it.