Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’

Re:Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’ by jfengel on Friday December 23, 2022 @02:12PM (#34109535)

Given that they know that they cannot collect the full $250M in the event of default, is there a reason that they picked that number? If they had called it a billion or a trillion or a squillion, what would have been different?

Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?

Presumably, they'll never find out, so perhaps it's moot. But I feel like there's a legal distinction or rule I'm missing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’ by dragonwriter on Friday December 23, 2022 @02:39PM (#34109798)

> Given that they know that they cannot collect the full $250M in the event of default

I would not assume they know that, or that that is true.

In fact, I think there is plenty of reason to think that:

(1) SBF has control of assets exceeding $250M (not untainted, and they would likely be subject to criminal forfeiture if he was convicted and they were identified, but in the case of flight...), and

(2) He would not necessarily be successful keeping them out of the reach of a default judgement in favor of the US government if he fled justice

> Or for that matter, if they had said that the penalty was $0, and that the securities and sureties were sufficient?

Security and sureties apply to the penalty, and are meaningless if it is zero.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bankman-Fried's Shrinking ‘$250M Bond’ by jfengel on Friday December 23, 2022 @03:16PM (#34110139)

Thank you. I appreciate your help understanding.

[ Parent | on HN ]