The decision […] comes almost seven months after Giuliani sought bankruptcy protection after he was ordered to immediately pay millions in damages to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, two Georgia women he falsely accused of helping to steal the 2020 presidential election.
lol, so absurd you could mistake it for satire
too much damages to pay -> bankruptcy -> rejected -> has to pay
In paperwork filed Thursday to seek protection from creditors, Giuliani listed up to $500 million in debts, including the $148 million he owes former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss. He also listed “unknown” amounts of debt to election technology companies Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems, which named the former New York mayor in their defamation lawsuits about the 2020 presidential election. He listed his assets between $1 million and $10 million.
So, he has (up to) 10 million in assets. He has to pay 148 million in damages immediately. And has over 352 million in other debts.
How is he not bankrupt? I’d be interested in the ruling. Unfortunately, it’s not linked to in the article, referenced, or mentioned why it’s missing. Does the ruling publishing need time, or is it press not sourcing?
The record in this case reflects Mr. Giuliani’s continued failure to meet his reporting obligations and provide the
financial transparency required of a debtor in possession.
Most significantly, none
of Mr. Giuliani’s business entities have made any production at all despite being required to do
so by the Rule 2004 Order.
So they were not transparent and the up to 10 million in assets and debt numbers may very well be made up.
Fifth, Mr. Giuliani has agreed to a one year filing bar following the dismissal of this case,
alleviating concerns that Mr. Giuliani would simply file another bankruptcy as soon as this case
is dismissed.
Seems like he chose case dismissal over financial transparency.
(It’s a long document, with multiple things/decisions, and legal speak, so having only skimmed for that detail, I may not have identified the or all significant parts. Discretion advised.)
lol, so absurd you could mistake it for satire
too much damages to pay -> bankruptcy -> rejected -> has to pay
So, he has (up to) 10 million in assets. He has to pay 148 million in damages immediately. And has over 352 million in other debts.
How is he not bankrupt? I’d be interested in the ruling. Unfortunately, it’s not linked to in the article, referenced, or mentioned why it’s missing. Does the ruling publishing need time, or is it press not sourcing?
Politico has the full text of the ruling up.
Thank you
So they were not transparent and the up to 10 million in assets and debt numbers may very well be made up.
Seems like he chose case dismissal over financial transparency.
(It’s a long document, with multiple things/decisions, and legal speak, so having only skimmed for that detail, I may not have identified the or all significant parts. Discretion advised.)