Chubb CEO defends backing Trump appeal bond in E. Jean Carroll case

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNBC

Published Wed, Mar 13 2024 12:33 PM EDT Updated 9 Min Ago


The CEO of the Chubb insurance company on Wednesday defended providing former President Donald Trump with a $91.6 million appeal bond in the civil case where he was found liable for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of rape.

Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg, in a letter to investors, customers, and brokers who expressed concerns about the bond, wrote that the decision to give it to Trump “has nothing to do with the underlying merits” of the appeal, “or with favoring any of the parties in the case.”

“When Chubb issues an appeal bond, it isn’t making judgments about the claims, even when the claims involve alleged reprehensible conduct,” Greenberg wrote in the letter, which was obtained by CNBC.

“As the surety, we don’t take sides, he said. “It would be wrong for us to do so and we are in no way supporting the defendant. We are supporting and are part of the justice system plumbing included in this case.” Chubb has been under fire since last week when Trump revealed he had obtained the appeal bond from the company.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/chubb-ceo-defends-backing-trump-appeal-bond-in-e-jean-carroll-case.html

[canuckledragger]

1. But they are taking sides, and they are supporting that rapist Trump.

They just don't want the negative consequences of doing so, so they choose to lie about it.

Everyone sees through this guy.

[Ocelot II]

2. No. The purpose of an appeal bond is to protect the person

who won the verdict. It is insurance against the possibility that TFG could hide or encumber assets in a way that would make it difficult or impossible for Carroll ever to collect. It’s not for Trump’s benefit but for hers.

[democratsruletheday]

15. THANK you Ocelot....

for once again bringing clarity and sanity to the forefront.

[democratsruletheday]

16. Thanks again Ocelot..

for once again bringing clarity and sanity to the forefront.

[exboyfil]

27. But is Trump paying market rate for this surety

That is the true question. If this is typical then it should be represented as an arm's length transaction.

Otherwise it is a campaign contribution.

When Trump fails to make good on the judgement we Chubb just write off the debt? That is the other question.

[dpibel]

63. Is Trump paying at all?

Sure, Chubb might be prepared to write off the debt.

Or there might be someone who's put cash in an escrow account.

We don't know.

And those who are pretending that this is all impeccable business as usual are speaking without evidence.

[dpibel]

64. "Trump's benefit"

You are saying that Trump gets no benefit from keeping his assets from attachment and liquidation during his appeal?

Can you acknowledge the possibility that there may be things in life where two people benefit at the same time?

[Ocelot II]

68. Yes, he keeps his assets for now, but since they are collateralized he can't do anything with them;

he can't sell them or rent them or do a damn thing without the consent of the lienholder, while still having to pay taxes and maintain them. And the post-judgment interest continues to accrue for the appeal period at the rate of 9%. So the benefit to him is pretty limited. If Carroll wins the appeal, as is almost certain, he has 15 days to pay the judgment himself. If he doesn't pay it, the surety pays up after another 15 days, and then they get to execute on the collateral. He's going to have to ante up one way or another. And Carroll is spared the very considerable expense and headache of having to collect herself (which would almost certainly take much longer than the duration of the appeal).

[dpibel]

72. You. Do. Not. Know.

Last edited Thu Mar 14, 2024, 02:48 AM - Edit history (1)

You do not know whether Trump's assets are collateralized or not.

Because we do not know what the collateral is for the Chubb bond.

It might be Trump's real property or other assets.

It also might be 91 million one-dollar bone saws from MBS.

It might be $91 million in rubles.

Can you acknowledge that? That you are assuming that Trump's assets, to the extent they exist, are not without question burdened by this bond at all?

That's the point I think you are missing.

If someone else is promising to pay Chubb, that's a problem.

[Ocelot II]

74. Is there some evidence of this?

Or are you just speculating?

[dpibel]

80. The same quantum of evidence you have

Please point to the place where I say it is a fact that the bond is supported by collateral other than Trump's assets.

I have said only that no one knows. I think that is indisputable. I am not speculating at all. I have never said someone else is providing collateral. Because I do not have any evidence of that, and have never claimed to. Nor do I need evidence to support the proposition that no one knows.

You, however, have stated without any evidence, that Trump is, as a matter of fact, the surety behind the bond.

There is a difference between saying something is known and saying something is unknown. The first, which is your position, should have evidence supporting it. That you do not have. The second, which is my position, pretty much is a flat statement of lack of evidence one way or the other.

You appear to be arguing that lack of evidence is proof of a contrary proposition. You are clearly smart enough to know that is an untenable argument.

[Ocelot II]

81. Whatever.

[Ray Bruns]

3. Let's see how they feel when Trump stiffs them

[Ocelot II]

5. $90M is pocket change for Chubb.

It’s an enormous multinational holding company with subsidiaries in 55 countries. They will have evaluated their risks and issued the bond under terms their underwriters accepted. The likelihood they will lose money is very slim, and they can easily afford it if they do.

[angrychair]

8. That's seems at odds

With the published account of the events leading up to it. This was done in the 11th hour after a personal meeting between Trump and Greenberg, known to be a trump friend and supporter and Republican mega-donor.

[Ocelot II]

11. Published by whom?

And even so, that doesn’t change the effect or the purpose of the bond, which is to protect Carroll’s verdict. Her lawyer and the judge signed off on it. Trump gets 15 days to pay up after he loses his appeals, and if he doesn’t pay, Chubb pays 15 days after that - and then they can go after the collateral. What is the problem?

[angrychair]

21. Greenberg

Was personally appointed to a white house advisory board by Trump (specifically the White House Advisory  Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations). This is a screw job of some kind because that's how trump operates. Time will tell.

[Ocelot II]

35. He's still on it. Why hasn't Biden removed him?

[onenote]

25. Link to this "published" account? Or is it a "some people say" account?

[angrychair]

32. Google is free

To answer you question Greenberg was personally put on a White House advisory committee by trump and according to OpenSecrets has given thousands of dollars to the RNC and Trump.

[onenote]

60. No, you referred to a published account of an 11th hour meeting between Trump and Greenberg leading to the bond

Where is that "published" account -- the one you referred to?

[Ocelot II]

82. Greenberg Traurig, a law/lobbying firm, was just signed to represent Orban's government.,

and Orbán just met with Trump, but that's a different Greenberg. Also, back in 2016 Trump met with Hank Greenberg, the former CEO of AIG. So yet another Greenberg! But heck, I guess a Greenberg is a Greenberg, so there we are! But Google couldn't seem to find any recent meetings between Trump and Chubb's Greenberg.

[Silent Type]

28. Do you have a link to a credible source that Greenberg is a Republican mega donor?

[angrychair]

33. OpenSecrets

He has given thousands of dollars to trump and the RNC.

[Silent Type]

41. And he's given thousands to Democrats, although admittedly not as much as GOPers.

[EndlessWire]

70. I don't know about Evan

but Maurice is (his father,) and Maurice is also on the board. I don't have the links handy, but you can look up the name of the board, see the officers, and click on Maurice.

[bluestarone]

19. Do you think CHUBB will cover

The 464 Million bond coming up? Just curious.

[mobeau69]

7. He can't. They have collateral worth way more than the bond amt.

It’s what they do.

[HariSeldon]

38. And Trump's own, highly reliable word...

...that said assets are unencumbered (or only encumbered to the extent disclosed to Chubb or its subsidiary).

Oops, I think I need to add this

ETA: Carroll will get her money if Trump loses the appeal, but Trump might not get stuck as hard as he should (financially) if Chubb fudged when writing this bond.

[Diraven]

56. Do they really, though?

People keep assuming this because that's generally how the business works, but no one seems to know what he used for collateral.

[mobeau69]

57. Even if the collateral was way overvalued by their underwriters EJC still gets her money.

I don’t see a problem.

[dpibel]

59. You skipped a step

You are assuming, without the slightest bit of evidence, that whatever collateral they have is Trump property.

You don't know that.

And that's the problem.

Unless, in your analytic, as long as Carroll gets her money, it's fine if the collateral for the bond (and by that I mean whatever it is--cash, realty, diamonds) came from MBS, Kim Jong Un, Jeff Bezos, or your pick of countries or billionaires.

If you cannot see the potential for the guaranty behind this bond being a straightforward bribe, I think you are being naive.

[mobeau69]

61. You have a point but why would Chubb get involved?

[dpibel]

62. For bucks

I may be misunderstanding your question, but, as many people in this thread and others on this subject have pointed out, Chubb is in it to make money. That's why they're involved, and I don't see a thing sinister about it on Chubb's part.

Chubb doesn't care where the money comes from.

If an anonymous person put $91 million (plus Chubb's premium) of gold bars in a Swiss safe deposit box and gave Chubb the key, Chubb would issue the bond. If Carroll prevailed in full on appeal, Chubb would write her a check for $91 million. Then it would send someone to Switzerland who would retrieve the gold, and everything's cool.

My position in this weird argument is: It's great that Carroll's payout is guaranteed. Chubb is doing nothing sinister--they'd issue a bond for anyone if it were secured, and they don't care (beyond patent illegality) who posts that security. The question, which I think is legitimate, is: Do we want a candidate for President of the United States letting someone else put up their assets to guaranty a $91 million bond?

I, and I may be nearly alone in this, think that's potentially problematic.

I mean, sure. At this point owning $91 million of Donald Trump probably puts you pretty far down the list of shareholders.

But still.

[ZonkerHarris]

4. fuck chubb

[Ocelot II]

6. Why don't you want Carroll's verdict to be protected

against attempts by Trump to prevent her from collecting? That’s what an appeal bond is for.

[ZonkerHarris]

18. I want her to take the Tower

[Ocelot II]

20. Trump doesn't own the tower.

He’s a part owner or lessor of units of it. Most of his holdings are encumbered or co- owned or otherwise unable to be seized except by lengthy and expensive court proceedings, which should not have to be Carroll’s burden.

[twodogsbarking]

9. Chubb writes bonds. Strickly business.

[Novara]

10. They must be catching a good deal of heat for this.

Excellent. It's good to see anyone who associates with the motherfucker catch this kind of heat. He's toxic.

And he'll stiff them when he loses his appeal.

[mobeau69]

12. He can't stiff Chubb. They have attorneys way better than Hubba Bubba that wrote the secured contract.

Chubb shits bigger than tsf.

[Novara]

13. While true, as long as he's being sued, he avoids actually paying. He could drag this shit on until he dies.

[mobeau69]

24. He's only appealing the judgement.

[Ocelot II]

36. If he doesn't pay Carroll, Chubb pays - and then they'll come after the collateral he put up for the bond.

They have better lawyers and deeper pockets than he does.

[Novara]

43. Yeah and as long as it is all tied up in court, he's not paying.

So Chubb sues him when he loses his appeal. More delays so he doesn't actually have to fork over the money after he loses his appeal.

He will find ways to delay everything until he's dead. Which should have happened in oh, 2015. Imagine what a better world we'd have.

[Ocelot II]

44. That's Chubb's problem, and they considered that risk when they issued the bond

and decided on the premium and the collateral. Chubb is big enough and rich enough to crush TFG like a bug and they'll do it if they have to. It's just bidness. If it keeps him tied up in court for the rest of his life (he's 77, fat and out of shape), fine; I like it that he has to keep attending depositions and paying lawyers forever. And if his assets are collateralized he can't do anything with them - can't sell them, can't borrow on them; he just has to maintain them and pay taxes on them for the benefit of the lienholder. He is not getting a good deal on this, and it's going to suck so much worse if he has to get an appeal bond for the NY fraud case.

[ShazzieB]

52. And E. Jean Carroll will get her payout from Chubb, no matter what.

Isn't that the most important thing? I certainly think so.

[Ocelot II]

54. Absolutely.

[Ocelot II]

40. He can't. At the end of the appeal process, if he loses (and he will), the bond guarantees Carroll gets paid.

He has 15 days after that to pay her. If he doesn't pay up, Chubb pays Carroll, and then goes after Trump's collateral. And they'll get it, too. They have much better lawyers and much deeper pockets.

[EndlessWire]

71. I would just like to know

how the fraud case and the special monitor figure in. I thought all the property was in receivership? If this were true, wouldn't they need permission from the monitor to use it as collateral? I thought Trump and the sons were on hold as anyone who could make those decisions. Remember when he moved $40 million to Florida without permission?

I don't think there's a person on the board who doesn't want to see Carroll and her attorney get paid. But, we all know how crooked Trump is and how he operates. And, Trump isn't afraid of stiffing Chubb. How do you know he can't screw her out of a payment, in a big, chaotic, post appeal way? I agree with you. The best way for her to get paid is to get the bond payment. Then, Trump can have his property attached by James for the fraud case.

Of course, there's always Carroll 3 to think about. I think she should let that go, but I don't know how her current judgment would interplay with a possible need to relitigate the whole case. If that did not disturb her judgment here, and she felt like doing it, then she should sue him again. We'll see.

I greatly appreciate your putting up with my nitpicking.

[maxrandb]

14. I have a simple solution for the CEO

RELEASE THE FUCKING DETAILS OF THE BOND!!!!

What are the terms? What assets were secured? Was there a cosigner, and if so, WHO?

Until those "deets" are made public, I hope every associate affiliated with Chubb, from the CEO, to the guy insuring my lawnmower, has to answer NON-STOP questions about this transaction.

Show the receipts, or accept that when you lie down with rats, you wake up with fleas.

[maxrandb]

17. Just one more thing Mr. CEO

Donnie Dipshits reprehensible conduct IS NOT ALLEGED!!!!!!!!

[Danascot]

22. Mr Chubb CEO

must never have heard the phrase, "Everything Trump touches turns to shit."

[Wild blueberry]

23. If I were Chubb shareholder, I'd be angry that the CEO just threw $90M out the window

Glad it guarantees E. Jean Carroll her damages, but who has $90M to burn? What is the CEO getting out of this?

[onenote]

26. So you don't think they have collateral covering the amount of the bond?

I'm not a Chubb shareholder, but if I was, I'd be happy that the company is going to clear around a million dollars for zero risk.

[twodogsbarking]

29. Chubb will not lose. I would bet on it. They know their shit and how to wipe it.

If there is a showdown it will be worth watching.

[ShazzieB]

55. I agree.

And if there's a showdown, it's a safe bet TSF will come out of it the worse for wear.

[Ocelot II]

42. Hell, it's tempting to buy stock in Chubb, especially if they also issue the bond for the much larger verdict

in the NY fraud case. They'll make a killing on that one. Trump Tower will be renamed the Chubb Building by the time they're done with him.

[Ocelot II]

37. They wouldn't have written the bond if their underwriters weren't confident

that the collateral he put up would cover any payout. $90M is small change for the Chubb Group, which is a multinational holding company that does business in 55 countries and has 30 subsidiary companies in just the U.S. Insurance companies aren't in business to lose money, and they won't lose any on this deal. Appeal bonds are a completely normal thing; in commercial litigation the verdicts are often much higher and these bonds are issued routinely.

[enid602]

30. Chibb

How totally unironic that one ‘Chubb’ is being backed by another,

[Silent Type]

31. For the F_%k Greenberg crowd, the horrible Evan Greenberg said this after 1/6/2021.

On January 7, 2021, Evan G. Greenberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Chubb,
provided the following statement on the results of the U.S. election:

"As citizens of our great nation, all of us have a responsibility to speak out against and
condemn in the strongest terms the violence and display of demagoguery we witnessed in
our nation's capital yesterday. This is not who we are as a nation and our democracy
must be protected. Whether one likes the results of our election or not, the citizens of our
country have spoken. Our election process as reaffirmed by our courts and government
agencies was fair and lawful. We look to all of our elected leaders from both parties to set
an example by their respect and active support for the orderly transfer of power and their
condemnation of false claims of election fraud. The confirmation of the electoral results
last night by Congress was a powerful affirmation of our democracy. We should all hope
for a new era of respect and decency as we meet the many common challenges facing our
nation."

https://about.chubb.com/content/dam/chubb-sites/chubb-com/us-en/global/citizenship-reports/documents/pdf/chubb-suspends-political-contributions-1-12-21.pdf

https://news.chubb.com/2021-01-07-Statement-from-Chubb-Chairman-and-CEO-Evan-G-Greenberg-on-U-S-Election-Results


Looking at his political contributions-- While he does not give a lot, he leans toward Democrats. There are some GOPers, but not nearly as many as Democrats.

https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/evan-greenberg.asp?cycle=16

But, he's a horrible person and we need to hate him too.

[Mz Pip]

34. So

What does Trump have on you, Mr. Chubb? Why do this?

[Ocelot II]

39. I'm running out of hands with which to perform another facepalm.

Trump doesn't have anything on him. This is a completely normal procedure that happens every single day in every federal court in the U.S. Surety companies like Chubb, which is so huge that Greenberg wouldn't even have known about it but for all the ignorant kvetching from people who have no idea how this all works, are in business to do exactly what was done in this case - make sure the winner of a case on appeal has their verdict protected from the possibility that during the appeal period the loser will dissipate assets. Their interests are protected by collateral, which they can collect if the appeal is lost and the loser doesn't pay. I doubt very much that the CEO of a gigantic multinational insurance company gets involved in routine underwriting decisions. Trump appointed Greenberg to an economic advisory committee, which seems to be their only connection; and he's still on it, since apparently Biden doesn't have a problem with him.

[BumRushDaShow]

47. "I'm running out of hands with which to perform another facepalm."

[Ocelot II]

48. That's about right...

[BumRushDaShow]

50. ...

Sorry I had to!

[onenote]

45. Why do it? To make around a million bucks.

With a fully collateralized bond, Chubb faces essentially no risk. Moreover, with just a routine bond fee of 1.3 percent, it makes an easy $1 million. If it didn't issue the bond, one of its competitors would have.

[SouthernDem4ever]

46. I still hope they lose it all

for supporting a known con-man.

[Ocelot II]

49. For the umpteenth time, the purpose of the bond is to protect Carroll's verdict,

not to benefit Trump. They aren't "supporting" him; they're charging him a fat hunk of change for the premium and making him put up the full amount of the verdict plus interest as collateral. They have him by the financial short hairs. How is this a bad thing?

[dpibel]

58. Assumes facts not in evidence

I can identify three strains of argument in this Trump bond fracas:

1. This means Carroll gets her money. What's the problem?

2. They should not have written the bond, cuz it would fuck up Trump.

3. What is the collateral? If it's from an unsavory source seeking leverage over Trump, that's a problem.

I believe you argue exclusively the first of these. I am entirely in agreement with you that it's a GREAT THING for Carroll's recovery to be protected at the end of the process. Wouldn't have it any other way.

On the second, it's actually true that not writing the bond would fuck up Trump, because it would allow Carroll to begin executing on the judgment immediately. It would, however, be more difficult for Carroll to try to extract cash or prizes from Trump than to have a bonding company write her a check.

On the third, which is the source of my subject line: What scintilla of evidence do you have that Chubb is charging Trump a dime directly, making Trump put up a cent, or has Trump by the short and curlies? You keep saying this as if it is so self-evident as to be beyond cavil.

But you in fact have no idea who has posted the collateral, who paid the premium, or whose short and curlies might be in Chubb's grasp.

I think that's a legitimate question. Perhaps you do not. Perhaps you do not care whether the premium and the collateral came from Trump, from Harlan Crowe, from Viktor Orban, from Elon Musk, or from Jesus his own self. But I do think there's a distinct possibility of Trump being beholden to yet another person.

I'm not saying we have a legal right to know. I'm not saying I know. I'm saying I think it's a significant question.

And I think you should either acknowledge that you don't care about that issue, or that you are just making it up when you state with certainty that Trump's on the hook for the bond.

[onenote]

65. You also make an assumption

You assume the there is no other surety company that could or would have provided Trump with the needed supersedeas bond.

But Chubb isn't the only company that issues large appeal bonds. Indeed, for some truly large bonds -- such as the $5 BILLION bond obtained by Exxon to cover the initial verdict in the Exxon Valdez civil litigation -- a group of companies will divide up the bond. And that's a strong possibility of how the bond on the fraud case will be handled.

[dpibel]

66. I said no such thing

Where did I remotely say that no one but Chubb would write this bond?

I don't believe that for a microsecond.

Any company in the business of writing such bonds would do so when presented with sufficient assurance that it will get its money back at the end, plus its premium.

What you say has, as far as I can tell, about zero connection to my point.

Which is this: No matter who issues the bond--Chubb or anyone else--there is no information currently available to support the proposition that the bond is secured by Trump money or other assets.

If the collateral backing the bond--from Chubb or from US National Reel Good Bail Bonds--comes from some source other than Trump and his businesses, there's a serious question whether there's influence being peddled.

Again, I have no idea what I've said that would give you the slightest notion that I think Chubb was his bond of last resort. I think you're kind of reaching.

[onenote]

67. Yes you did.

In your post, you say you "can identify three strains of argument in this Trump bond fracas".

You describe the second of these arguments as "They should not have written the bond, cuz it would fuck up Trump." By "they," you obviously are referring to Chubb.

And then you state: "it's actually true that not writing the bond would fuck up Trump, because it would allow Carroll to begin executing on the judgment immediately."

In other words, you assume that if "they" -- meaning Chubb -- didn't write the bond, Carroll would be able to begin executing on the judgment -- which only would be true if there was no other entity than Chubb that would have written the bond.

[dpibel]

73. I am SO BUSTED!!1!

I'm sorry.

Let me help you out.

For starters, I am not stating my opinion or belief. I am attempting to capture the argument that's been stated by other people. I am so sorry I did not make it clear to you.

Let's try this:

"it's actually true that Chubb or anyone else not writing the bond would fuck up Trump, because it would allow Carroll to begin executing on the judgment immediately." [italics are added material]

I do admire your attention to detail, and I'm especially impressed with your breaking my proposition into two parts when another reading was equally tenable.

Nonetheless. The proposition is that if Trump were unable to get a bond, execution on the judgment could have proceeded apace.

Your attempt to make that Chubb-specific is, in its own way, beautiful. And yet ineffectual.

[Ocelot II]

77. And what is the evidence that assets other than Trump's are the collateral?

There's been a lot of assuming that the bond is backed by something (or someone) other than Trump's assets. Since he's a career criminal that's always a possibility, but I'm not the one assuming facts not in evidence. A reputable, very large and very financially stable insurer has issued an appeal bond for an amount of money that is not at all unusual in major litigation; it was accepted by the other party and signed off by the judge. All of Trump's gains were ill-gotten at some point. The assets he already holds were obtained dishonestly, if not illegally, and probably with a good amount of Russian money, as one of his dim sons once revealed. Does it matter how many levels of transactions are involved? But if there's actual evidence that this particular transaction was directly and immediately funded by some outside source, we haven't seen it.

[dpibel]

78. You are the one making flat assertions

I'm pretty sure you can see the difference.

You have been stating as a matter of indisputable fact that Trump is on the hook, Trump is paying the premium, and so forth. But you can offer nothing but speculation in support of those propositions.

I have pretty clearly stated that no one knows what the collateral is for the bond. That involves no assumption of any kind. In fact, you and I are in complete agreement on that, although you seem to prefer to pretend otherwise.

If you cannot see the difference between "Trump is on the hook" and "No one knows if Trump is on the hook," I'm pretty sure I cannot offer you further assistance in sorting it out.

[Ocelot II]

79. Whatever.

[SouthernDem4ever]

75. It's not a bad thing - for Trump

I would rather the court seize and sell his assets.

[OnDoutside]

51. The main backer for the Brexit campaign in the UK

also made his money from insurance, and was thought to have links with Russia, Aaron Banks. Odd coincidence.

[Ocelot II]

53. It's not odd at all. Insurance is very, very big business all over the world.

There's nothing strange about people making a huge fortune in the insurance business. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[William Gustafson]

69. I am waiting for her to start another defamation case against Trump....

As he defamed her again this last weekend, at a rally.... could be interesting to see if that amount so far, gets doubled again to shut his mouth....https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/03/10/trump-attacks-e-jean-carroll-again-running-risk-of-another-defamation-suit/?sh=549c6ddc507d

[marble falls]

76. He didn't say how the guarantee from TFG was made. More Putin money laundering?

[Kennah]

83. Chubb has a chubbie for Chump

[mahatmakanejeeves]

84. I was told there would be popcorn served with this thread. Where's the line? NT

[prodigitalson]

85. this is fine

1. it assures EJC gets paid.

2. it assures an entity with way deeper pockets and far greater resources than EJC come after TFG whe he doesn't pay