politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
According to the article, he has some multi-million dollar properties in FL and NY that he's supposed to liquidate in order to raise the funds.
So why couldn't he liquidate the rest and pay the full amount?
The full amout Rudy is on the hook for is ~150 million. He'll be lucky to get even 5% of that from selling his property.
Sorry, what I meant was why does he get to keep anything? I know he can't pay it all, but he should have to sell everything he has to cover what he owes.
There are different kinds of bankruptcy, but generally it's meant for people who are making a good faith effort to pay down their debts but are so underwater that it's become impossible. Bankruptcy can restructure their debt in a way that makes it possible to pay off a portion of it, and often times they'll be allowed to keep some assets (like a home or a car) since it's generally understood that losing those things will basically guarantee that the debtor will no longer be able to earn an income. The creditors want to recover as much of the debt as they can, and understand that once they've made someone homeless they won't be getting any more money.
Of course, bankruptcy courts aren't likely to look at a guy who has multiple multi-million dollar residences and decide he's making a 'good faith effort' to pay his debts.
What will probably happen is Rudy will be forced to liquidate his properties but be allowed to keep just enough money to afford a sad little apartment above a bowling alley or whatever. Then, after most of the money from those liquidations has been spent of lawyers fees (his own lawyers and his creditors lawyers) he'll attempt to go through bankruptcy again and actually be successful.
Funny how fast the magats have completely abandoned Rudy now that hes no longer a useful idiot for them.
Live by the fascism, die by the fascism!
Especially because buyers know he’s being forced to sell, and can therefore offer him rock bottom prices for it. Because if the sale is forced, he can’t refuse the “best” lowball offer.
Maybe I dont know the true definition of bankrupt then. But I feel like owning multimillion dollar properties you can borrow against should probably disqualify you. Unless he already did that. Which is possible.
IANAL, but as an outside observer the bankruptcy stuff always seemed to me like a bit of a hail Mary/stall tactic, not a legitimate legal remedy that would actual pan out for old Rudy.
This new agreement seems to suggest that the legal system also views it this way.
Bankruptcy is owing considerably more than your assets are worth, and having no realistic way of raising enough to pay back what you owe.
A few low multimillion dollar properties doesn't put much of a dent in what Rudy owes