We are on the record. This is the videotaped deposition of Donald Trump taken in the case of Steve Aaron, et al, versus the Trump Organization, Inc., a New York Corporation, and Donald Trump, an individual, filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Today's date is September 20, 2010. The time on the videotaped record is 10:08 a.m. This deposition is being held at 90 Park Avenue, New York, New York. My name is J.D. Martinez on behalf of Digital Media Productions of 120 Broadway, New York, New York. Would everyone please introduce themselves and state whom they represent? Thank you. I'll begin. Dan Clark, Clark & Martino, on behalf of the named plaintiffs. Ken Turkel, Bajo Cuva Cohen & Turkel, on behalf of the named plaintiffs. Dan Walbolt is also with me, with my firm. Chris Griffin, Foley & Lardner, for the defendants. Alan Garten for the defendant. Donald Trump. Please state your name for the record. Donald Trump. What is your address? 726 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10022. Mr. Trump, good morning. Thank you for the short delay. We spoke off the record. I introduced myself. Thank you for accommodating us. We started a little bit late, my apologies. We are here to take your deposition in case that's been filed against you and your company by a number of people in Tampa that I represent. One of the first things I will show to you -- and we will have exhibit boards here shortly that will be identical to what you see -- there is the New York Times Magazine that demonstrates all of your signature properties as of October of '06. I believe you had an opportunity to take a look at that? Yes. Can you open that up just so I can refer to those? The Donald Trump -- excuse me, Donald J. Trump Signature Properties, who began that slogan of the marketing of your properties as such? I did. When did that begin? I would say 10 years ago. Was that an idea just taking your ingenuity and your value of your name and putting it into a marketing title for those properties? I think generally speaking, yes. I mean, marketing, but also ownership, different forms of ownership, consulting, et cetera, et cetera, but a better property, a better property or potential property, we use the word signature. I know -- I have tried to study as much as I possibly could, understanding your properties and gearing up for the deposition, quite frankly, before I took the case. Can you express to those who may watch this video down in Tampa, in this case, what it means to be a Donald J. Trump property, in terms of value, as in terms of success? I am going to object to the form of the question. If I make objections such as that, it is for the record and for the judge to determine later. Please, after my objection, go ahead and answer the question. If for some reason I think that it is a greater objection than the norm, I will instruct you not to answer it. There is no instruction at this time, and if I ever make an objection and you would like the question read back before you answer it, you are welcome to ask for that. You mean a Donald J. Trump Signature property? That's correct. Because you left the word Signature out. My apologies. You mean Signature Property? Yes, sir? It would not necessarily indicate ownership, but in some cases it does. In many cases, as I look at some of these buildings, it does indicate ownership. It indicates quality more than anything else. The property would have to be of a significant quality to use the Donald J. Trump Signature Property. Is there a distinction in your mind between a Donald J. Trump Signature Property and maybe another property that you are involved with, whether by ownership or otherwise? I think Signature generally is the highest end property. Starting 10 years ago, you came out with that -- Yes. -- trademarked description of those properties? That is correct. On that list of properties, obviously they caught our attention -- the Trump Tower Tampa is there. You see that there? Correct. There are a couple of other properties there that have been in some dispute. I believe there is a number of the Trump International hotels that are referenced there? Correct. What I was interested in knowing, sir, was what is the difference between the Trump Tower and the hotel and residence? I mean, I stayed in your New York hotel over the weekend. I know that you have a residence next door. Well, they are both -- I object to the form of the question. Go ahead. They are both very successful. They are both very well located. They are different in that Trump Towers is quite a bit taller building. Trump Towers is on 57 and 56th Street and Fifth Avenue. It is a retail primarily, which Trump International doesn't have. It is a retail office and residential, whereas the building you stayed at, Trump International Hotel and Tower, is a hotel and residential. It doesn't have office and it doesn't have retail. Do you agree, and I absolutely think that I know your answer to this, when you put the Trump name on a property, it brings immediate value? Yes. The Trump factor, it has been called? Yes, that's been very well proven. There was -- I forgot the guy's name that came up with the "Trump factor" as that quoted language. That Trump factor, have you ever tried to put a dollar figure on it so that you go out to the marketplace, whether it is on your financials or however else one would account for that; have you ever tried to do that? Well, we have looked into it and reports have been done. I don't have them available now, but I think I could probably find them, where there is a value attributable to a Trump building. I don't know if that's because of the brand or because of the locations or because of lots of goodwill that's been built up over the years, but there is a value to the Trump name being on a building. We were all excited in Tampa when you came to put your name on the Trump Tower Tampa. So was I. We knew that value was going to be brought to our home town. When I grew up, Tampa was not what it is today, 20, 30 years ago. When you came to Tampa, how did you know that this was a right place for a Trump Tower? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. I was very excited also to be in Tampa. A good friend of mine that passed away, George Steinbrenner, loves Tampa -- loved Tampa. He actually told me what a wonderful site this was and what a great job this would be. George actually had a lot to do with it. Derek Jeter was somebody that told me also it is great. He lives in one of my buildings. He lives at Trump World Tower opposite the United Nations. We have a lot of the Yankees, traditionally, that have been living in my buildings. Derek was actually very excited about it. He expressed it one time. George thought it was a great site, a really good site. I asked him about it specifically and he was very excited that I was going down there. I was very excited that I was going to Tampa. When you looked at those properties, the Signature properties, clearly one cannot make distinctions between what you, sir, Mr. Trump, owned versus something else. Can you point out for me from that list of properties which are owned and largely developed by you versus a license arrangement like you had in that situation? Sure. You want me to start all of them? If it is going -- We can do it quickly. If you look up, Trump National Golf Club is a hundred percent owned by me. Trump National of Bedminister is a hundred percent owned by me. Trump International of Palm Beach is owned by me a hundred percent. Trump Canouan is a licensed deal. That's a licensed transaction. I don't own that and I am not a partner in that. Some licensing deals, I consider myself to be a partner and we are partners. Trump Tower, I own that. Trump Park Avenue, that's my job. Trump World Tower, where Derek Jeter lives, is my job. I own that, I built that. Trump International Hotel and Tower, Number One Central Park West, where you stayed, that was my job. I built that job. Trump Place on the West Side, I built that job with partners. We had partners from different places. Trump Park and Trump Park East, that's my job. I built it. Trump Palace in New York, that's my job. I built it. 16 Park Avenue, I did that with Colony Capital, which is a big fund in California. It was a very big success. The Trump building at 40 Wall Street, I own that building. I own a hundred percent of that building. Trump Tower White Plains, that was a licensing deal that I am -- that I have a licensing fee for. I am not a partner, per se. I have a licensing fee. There is a difference, which I am sure we will get into. Trump Plaza New Rochelle, that was a licensed deal. Trump Soho, that's a licensing deal, but I get a percentage of the profits, so in a sense, I am a partner there. Kind of like Trump Tower Tampa ultimately as amended -- excuse me? I view a partnership to be when we get percentage of profits, when I have a percentage of ownership, when I have -- beyond just a fee, beyond a flat fee, where you get a flat fee for helping to -- for using the name or for using the name and helping with the building. Trump Hollywood, that's a licensing deal. Trump Plaza Jersey City is a licensing deal. The estates of Trump International and Los Angeles on the ocean, I own that. Trump International Hotel and Tower in Ft. Lauderdale, that was a licensing deal. Trump Towers Sunny Isle, that's a licensing deal. The Dubai project was partially licensed, partial partnership. The Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, I own that building. It is big building and I own it. Trump World Tower in Soho, that was a licensing deal. Trump National Golf Club, Los Angeles, I own that. Trump New Orleans, that's a licensing deal. Trump International Hotel and Tower Waikiki -- it just opened two weeks ago. That's a combination of licensing and other things. Trump International Hotel Las Vegas, I own that. Trump Tower Philadelphia, that's licensing deal. Trump Tower Tampa, that's a partnership, and I also get licensing fees, but it was a partnership because I get a substantial percentage of profits. Trump Ocean Club is a licensing deal. Trump Grande is a licensing deal. Trump Las Olas is a licensing deal. The Mar-a-Lago Club, I own. The Villa Trump in Brazil, I sold a couple of years ago, and Trump International Hotel in Toronto, that's a partnership. Other than that, I covered a lot of territory. That was a lot of territory, sir. Thank you for going through that. Based upon what you do in a given day and where you manage your time, is there any distinction whether it is an owned property or one that you largely are developing, versus a licensing deal or a partnership, as you kind of described it? Anything I put my name to is very important. If I allow my name to be used, whether it is a partnership or whether it is licensing deal, they are all very important to me. Because your name, that has value, and if something happens to your name-- The name has a lot of value, and so any time I use my name, whether it is a licensing deal or whether it is something I own and build myself, it is very important. I mean, I don't break it up and say, oh, gee, this is more important than that. Anything that I have my name on is very important. Do you agree with me that anybody that's looking at investing or buying into one of your properties, whether they are licensed partnership or owned, has expectations of quality, absolute? That's true. Expectations that when you put your name on something, it's going to be top shelf, the best available? That's true. Whether you actually come out of pocket, Mr. Trump, and put your money in a deal, from your perspective it doesn't matter. You are still going to commit a hundred percent, or as my father used to say, 110 percent, to anything you put your name to? I think that's true, yes. There are also distinctions between the properties, a license deal and one you own. There are some distinctions? There are legal distinctions. There are distinctions, I guess. Each property is in a different form. I just went through a lot of properties, and there are very few that are similar. There are many different forms of ownership, partnership and licensing deals. There are legal distinctions. Do they cause projects to have difficulties, whether it be needing money, permitting, whatever the various things, getting the best contractor on the job, getting financing? Are there problems when you have distinctions legally and the effect that those distinctions may have on a property? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. Do you understand my question? I would like it explained maybe a little differently. I am a lawyer trained so I understand when you say legal distinctions. Legal distinctions is -- for those who may watch this, there is a clear distinction between a licensing deal when you've endorsed or put your mark to something and to which you on the flip side of that own something. Legally that's a different document, correct? Yes. Legally your name and you may have to sign various guarantees when you are the owner, correct? Correct. Those distinctions, those legal distinctions are going to have some effect on the project, would you agree, from the smallest to the largest? Well, again, when I own something, I work very hard to make sure it is successful. If we license something and there are many forms of licensing, but if we license something we also make sure --you know, we try our best to make it very successful. It is very important to us to have the license deals also be successful. Those distinctions can cause trouble, because if Donald Trump owns a project, owns building, owns a development, Donald Trump can go out and get financing? Yes, I can get financing generally. You have a variety of projects that I have studied, whereas the owner of the property -- you are not going to have trouble getting financing for a project. I think today everybody has trouble getting financing for a project. Actually since the real estate depression, as I call it, I mean everybody really has trouble getting financing. Does that apply to you, sir? Have you had trouble on projects that you have owned and developed? I haven't done certain projects because financing is not available. Okay. Certain projects aren't done because financing is just not available. Let's put out a couple of examples. Go ahead. That were going up, Trump Tower Tampa was going up or was coming out of the ground about the same time as some of the other ones that you were owning? Correct. The ones that you were owning at the time you got financed, correct? Well, I would have to look at the individual jobs. I mean, certain jobs didn't get financed. For instance, I was doing a job in Dubai, and that was going to be built by essentially the country of Dubai. Now, what's better than Dubai? Guess what, they went essentially bust. They were taken over by another country. Who would have thought that job that was Trump Palm built on the island of Dubai and that job was a government job and they weren't able to get financing for it. That was the country of Dubai. Things happen. I am just looking at another one, Philadelphia. They were unable to get financing, a very strong partnership. I will say this, what I do strive to get are great locations. You know, when you get outside of Manhattan, which is my base, it is very hard to do things without a partnership in the world of real estate because real estate is largely a local business. The people in Tampa know the best sheetrock contractor, they know the best plumbers, they know the best roofers. I don't. I know the Yankees because I go to see Tampa. I used to go a lot with George to the Yankee games in Tampa. But they know the different contractors, so I always believed in getting partners once I get too far outside of my own realm, especially in places like Dubai and other things, but also in places like Tampa or Miami, et cetera. We have had some very good partners, but sometimes a market supersedes a partner. When the market crashed, very many brilliant real estate men went bust over the last few years. They essentially went out of business. They went bankrupt or out of business. That had to do with a very major market condition and it is a tough period of time for people. The Trump Hotel and Tower in Toronto, the Trump Soho, Trump International Hotel in Panama all got financing? They did. Through the market crash, for lack of better description? They did, but some didn't. Those properties that I just mentioned, Toronto, Soho and Panama, all were your own projects, correct? Well, let's go over them. Soho was a licensed deal with a partnership interest and -- That's in your backyard. A little bit like Tampa. I have a partnership interest and I also have a license deal. The other one you mentioned was what? The Panama project. No, the Panama project is purely a licensed deal. That got financed? That got financed. It was just prior to the depression. They got their financing just in time. Somebody said it was the last bond issue done. Now it is starting up again with the bond issues, as you have been reading. Sure. That was the last bond issue. That is license deal that got financed, a developer in Panama. Toronto? Toronto was a licensing deal that also got financed. A very rich developer from the Toronto area is doing that job. That is going up and I think it is doing very well. That got financed, yes. Did you have any opportunity to step in to help with financing of this project, Tampa? The Tampa project? The Trump Tower Tampa. What happened in Tampa, there was a big problem, as I remember, with the foundations, but that's a problem that's always surmountable. You can do that with -- I always say you have to throw some money at it. The real problem was the market was -- you know, it went from being very good to being horrendous. You know, the Tampa market right now is in very bad shape. Would I have stepped in? Well, if I did, it would have been a mistake, because if the building had been built, it would have been pretty problematic, as you know, because all you have to do is look at the Tampa market. But you pulled your name from it, so once you pulled your name from it, I don't care who you are, nobody is going to be putting that type of money. Yes, I took my name off. As I remember, they were -- you have to speak to my attorneys about this, but we sent them a legal notice to take the name off because of certain obligations which they did not meet. But at that point they are dead in the water once you pulled your name off; would you agree with that? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. I think they were -- I think the market changed very radically prior to my pulling the name off. I think they tried very hard to make this job successful. There were other projects that just got put on hold though during the market crash? Some get put on hold, some get terminated and some get dumped. In this particular case, they were having some very serious market problems prior to my pulling the name off. Las Olas in Ft. Lauderdale? Yes. Am I saying it correctly? Yes. That got put on hold; right? That got put on hold. That was a license. It is not dead in the water? Well, I think it is. The market killed it. That was a licensing deal. That was -- I really have nothing to do with that one. That was put on hold. Have you pulled your name from it? I think it was terminated. Sorry to interrupt. I think we had, yes. Again, market conditions made it impractical, really impractical to build. Is that your final answer kind of thing in this case, Tampa Trump was killed by the market? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. Well, I think the market was a disaster. The market in Tampa was record bad. It was as bad as Miami. It was as bad as other locations, and continues to be. Certainly had the market -- let's put it this way, had the crash, which we all know about, which we all acknowledge, I think, had the crash not occurred, this building would have been built. I have no doubt about that. Why do you say that? I just think it would have been built. Had the crash not occurred, I think this building would have been built. If you would have been the owner of this project, would it have been dead in the water, as it is now? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. With the crash having taken place as it did? Yes. Yes. Everything staying equal, but changing the fact -- I think probably the project would not have been built. I was a partner in the job as it was. I hated to see this job not get built because it was a beautiful job in a good location, but the market conditions throughout the world were so bad that had it been built, it would have been much worse. Frankly it would have been much worse for the people had they bought their property and closed. They would have lost a lot more money. Is it your position in this case that, yes, we had a market crash, particularly Tampa, and given the market effect there that that's the distinction between your other projects going up, whether you're licensed or owned in comparison to Tampa? It is just location? Object to the form of the question. I will give you an example. In Chicago, I built a big building, a much more expensive building by -- I got that one built. The difference is that in Chicago I got my financing just prior to the crash. So, we built it during the crash, but I had financing. I was just about the only building to get built in Chicago, but that building was built because the financing was secured prior to the crash. Some buildings weren't built like Dubai and others. When you had the line in the sand in your head right before the market crash or right on the eve of that in making comparisons, is there a date or a time period in your mind when you had to get your financing before things went bad? Object to the form of the question. We can look up the date. I don't know exactly what that date was, but there was basically a crash having to do with Lehman, and ultimately having to do with Bear Stearns, and it was a mess. It was a very tragic period. It was, you know, the second greatest crash after the Great Depression. We could have gone into the Great Depression, but no bank was loaning money for anything, let alone to build a condominium development, whether it is Tampa or anybody else or anyplace else, and that means virtually anywhere in the world. We are not talking about Tampa. This is not a Tampa problem. This was a worldwide problem. I guess what I am thinking off the top of my head is the crash is over here and Trump Tower Tampa had a ton of time to get its financing in place before the crash occurred. Do you agree with that? I think what they were doing was they were making sure everything was good. Again, you would have to ask them. The developing group was, from what I have found out, this is a little bit subject to checking. Second-hand? It is second-hand, but they were working very hard, I will say that. They were really trying to do a really good project. They wanted everything perfect and they figured they could get their financing because history shows there is a long window for getting financing. Then one day Lehman went bad, Bear Stearns went bad, and the entire market crashed. Yes, I think they would have gotten their financing had we not had that. I think they probably felt, like many people, you are not the only ones; if they wait, they will get a better deal. But what happened is they did wait and the market crashed. lot of people were in that same position. They wanted their plans perfect. They wanted their plans and specifications perfect. They waited and frankly. Getting financing was easy. Getting financing was easy for jobs like this, for any of the jobs. Then one day there was a crash and you could not get financing, so I don't think they did anything different than many, many developers throughout the country and throughout the world. They were getting their plans and everything ready. They were focused on the job. They were doing sales and presales and then the market crashed. The Chicago property has your personal guarantees, correct? Limited, limited guarantees, but it had some guarantees. Donald J. Trump, you, sir, guaranteed to a certain extent, whatever that extent is? But again, that financing was gotten -- I had limited guarantees, very limited, but that financing was gotten prior to the crash. Same thing with my Las Vegas job. I built that also, and I owned that. Personal guarantees? Very limited, completion, but that was, I got that financing prior to the crash. Had I not, I wouldn't have been able to have gotten that done. That was a huge project, was it not? Big project, sure, both of them. There were no personal guarantees from you for the Trump Tower Tampa, correct? None whatsoever. In the other license deals -- In fact, I don't even know how I am in this case personally, okay? So you will have to explain that to me. I will be glad to. You will have to explain that to my lawyer. I had absolutely no personal guarantees. Very good. In your other licensing deals, do you -- putting aside the Trump Tower Tampa for a minute, those other licensing deals, whether they are just straight licensing fees versus a partnership, do you, sir, or your company disclose to those buyers that you're merely licensing your name? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. I think in some cases we do. I am just not sure. Tell me what you know. I really don't. I mean, I really don't. As I told you before, whether I license or whether I own, we work very hard to make sure the building is going to be a really good building. I don't know, every deal is so different. Each deal here, every one of these deals is a totally different deal. Real estate is a complex subject and every deal is a different deal. The licensing agreement in this particular case, Trump Tower Tampa with Simdag, had a very structured confidentiality that nobody to the agreement could disclose the terms of it? Correct. Especially some of the key terms that went into the termination letter that was sent out prior to your lawsuit with Simdag. Do you know, sir, whether that similar confidentiality agreement or provision is in other licensing agreements? I think I have it in every one or almost every one. Confidentiality is very important. I don't want my competitors to know my deals. I don't want them to see what deal I am making in Tampa, what deal I am making in Panama, what deal I am making in New York, what deal I am making throughout the world. So, we have confidentiality in many of our deals, if not all. I mean, you would have to ask my lawyer that question, but we have -- confidentiality is very important. Regardless of the structure, the terms of your licensing deals that I absolutely agree would be confidential to the extent of dollars being paid, what the terms are, but the general sense of disclosing to ultimate buyers on the street that want to go live or invest in a Trump property, in these other licensing deals, putting aside Trump Tower Tampa, do you disclose to buyers your actual involvement owner versus a licensing arrangement? Object to the form of the question. Each deal is different. I would love to give you one answer, but every deal is totally different. As an example, every deal, many of the deals I have different lawyers. I have lawyers where this gentleman is not involved. I have a different set that's involved in California. I have different sets that are involved and they have their own way of doing things of the each -- and Dubai I had lawyers from -- Dubai? Dubai. We have good lawyers, but they all have their own way of doing things. And probably, again, I wouldn't know the answer to this, but there are probably different disclosures for different deals. I don't want you to guess because we are not here to take guesses. It helps nobody on either side. My question is more focused to what you know as you sit here right now. Do you know if you disclosed in these other licensing deals your actual involvement as a licensor of the name? I don't know. I really don't. Do you know whether you disclosed the licensing arrangement in general sense, without necessarily the terms, to anyone with respect to the Trump Tower Tampa? I really don't know. I really don't know. Do you recall ever discussing in any way, shape or form, you personally, to anyone that this was just a licensing arrangement? Object to the form of the question. I don't think -- first of all, when you say just a licensing, I don't consider this to be just a licensing deal. I consider myself to be a partner in the Tampa deal. I have told you other cases where I was a licensor, I was purely a licensor. In the Tampa deal I got a major percentage of the profits from the deal. We worked very hard on the design of the building. My staff worked very hard to make sure the ceiling heights were right, the windows -- a lot of different things went into this building. It was a complicated building, but it would have been a beautiful building had it not been for the market crash. I don't consider this to be merely a licensing deal. I consider, really, being a partner in this deal because of the fact that I share a major percentage of the properties in the deal. You would expect those who were investing and buying the property to have those expectations, given your name was put to the project, that you were partner quality -- No, I wouldn't expect that. I would say if somebody were to ask, they could be told, but in the case of Tampa, I really considered -- Tampa, we worked harder in Tampa than we worked on most jobs. In Tampa I considered myself to be a partner because we shared in the profits. I don't usually -- I don't always do that. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, but when I start sharing in profits, we really -- that really is in the form of a partner. Would you expect people buying or investing in a Trump property like Trump Tower Tampa, would you expect them to know the distinction between you as a licensing partner and an owner? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. I think they knew that I wasn't down there building the building. People didn't expect that I was going to be spending the next two years in Tampa building the building. I am sorry, you are right. I think they felt confident that I was not going to be in Tampa building the building. They also knew of Simdag. Everybody knew of Simdag. The developers were very well known in the area and respected in the area. I think they knew that Donald Trump wasn't the person that was going to be down there building the building. Certainly they didn't think -- I never got a call from somebody saying why aren't you down there building this building. Nobody expected it. Is there such a thing as Donald Trump building the building in any of these projects? Sure. Can you name one? Chicago. Chicago, where you are actually on site? Yes, well -- no, not on site, but I went there a lot. I was building the building, my people were building the building. Las Vegas, my people were building the building. When you say your people? People that worked for me directly, people that I paid a salary to. They were building that building. What makes you say that the buyers -- forget the buyers for a second. Tampa, from the mayor all the way down, did not expect that Donald Trump would be building this building. What makes you say that? Well, I just feel that, number one, I think that was the perception, that I wasn't building the building. I think there were numerous articles, press articles that I wasn't building the building, per se. I wasn't building it. I would say that that would be to me, that would be the perception. If somebody were to ask or if somebody were to call my office, I would certainly say that I am not building the building. If they ask whether or not I was a partner in the building, I would say yes, I got a percentage of the profits in the building. I had a big stake in the building. I had a very big stake in the building, but because development is a local business, it was better that local people were building the building than me because I don't know the sheetrock contractors and I don't know the plumbers and the roofers and the people in Tampa. I don't know them. I wouldn't be as good building the building as a local group. I think you said this already, but I just want to be crystal clear in my head. In your opinion, sir, you personally, did you think the deal in Tampa was dead before you pulled your name from the project? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. I didn't know it was dead or not. I know that we sent out a notice I guess that was based on a default, that they had not -- Paid you. They had not paid us. They had run into terrible market conditions and I understood that and they had not paid us. How much did you ultimately get out? I know it is probably confidential in Simdag. I know it went to mediation and ultimately resolved and the file is closed. I don't know if there is anything dangling. I don't know if your lawyer has any instruction for you, and I want to give an introduction to that, to the extent you are going to instruct him so wait. Let me just, if I may, if you are going to get into any specifics about the settlement of other lawsuits, it is confidential. I will instruct him not to answer on that basis. Let me lay the question out. Take the instruction and we will deal with it later, okay? Okay. Did you settle your lawsuit with Simdag? I will instruct you not to answer. Yes or no, either way? Look, I will stipulate that the lawsuit was dismissed. Beyond that I am not going to let him answer any questions. Understood. Next question, did you settle your lawsuit with Dr. Shahanassarian's wife? I instruct you not to answer. I object on the basis of confidentiality. With respect to any ongoing litigation with respect to those projects that were licensing arrangements, have you settled any of those lawsuits? I am going to have to speak to Alan Garten. I don't know anything about other lawsuits, whether we can -- so give me a second. Sure, let's take two minutes. We can table it and just keep moving. Good idea. You sued Simdag, as I read the lawsuit and the pleadings, because they did not pay you the licensing fee, is that correct, or were there other reasons? I would rather have you ask my lawyers because-- I am only asking you what you know. If you don't know, that's completely fine and understandable. We sued them for various reasons, I guess, and I would rather have you refer to my lawyers on what exactly took place. I don't want to be inaccurate. One of the things that was disclosed in this case, and I won't bore you with all the procedural steps in the Federal case, it is disclosed to us that your son Mr. Trump Jr., possesses general information about the amendment that was the first amendment that went to the licensing arrangement. I thought it was kind of awkward that in the disclosures you possessed the background going into the original agreement and that your son possessed information separately about the amendment. Is there a distinction, in your mind, about what you know with respect to the original agreement and the amendment, or am I just off base? My son became involved with the job over a period of time so he would know something about the job. The distinction between the two documents, as I see it, the licensing arrangement on solid dollars went from 2 million to 4 million. Do you know the chronology of events that led to that? I do not. Would he know that, if you know? I sort of doubt it. The licensing arrangements that you pointed out for these projects, who came up with the idea of licensing your name? I did. Can you take us back in time when that came about? Object to the form. Is there a time period in your mind and you said -- this is me talking -- I've created a great name from hard work, value, all the things that we have read about and know about of you, sir, that I am going to go out and license my name and give people quality without actually having to put and investing dollars in the project? It took place years ago. I had done a good job. We have had great success, and I think the brand has become very valuable, only enhanced very greatly by the Apprentice, which you watched the other night. I appreciate your telling me that. And the brand has been enhanced by the great success of the Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice on television. Years ago, we started -- people would come to us and they say, you know, we want to build a building in a certain location in Waikiki and we would like to use the Trump brand or we want to build a building someplace else and we want to use the Trump brand. All of a sudden, we started making some deals which were licensing deals, some deals which were licensing and partnership deals. It is very funny because almost all of the deals are different. I mean, I can't think of -- it is not just like a boilerplate, where you just sign. Every deal is different. Some people have cash and they would rather pay cash. Other people don't have cash, they would rather pay a percentage over a period of time. Some people would rather have you as a partner and give you a piece of the deal or a piece of the profits. Each deal is very different. The dollars of how you value licensing your name, whether it is just a straight fee versus a partnership, is there a value that you put into each deal? Is there some kind of calculation that you go in and say, okay, guys, are you coming to me, hypothetically? Yes, it is very ad hoc. Really? It depends on the developer, it depends on the location, it depends -- as an example, we did a deal in New Orleans, a licensing deal and, like, almost -- I may be wrong on this a little bit, but a few days later it got hit by the big hurricane, the disaster. They paid a lot of money to go in. I think it was $2 million up front. I called them, I said do you want your money back. They said, no, no, we are going to build this job, and that was, like, how many years ago. Years ago. Five, six? They are still working on that job. I think they are going to get it built. It is amazing. They didn't want their money back. Things happen. In that case it was Katrina. But things happen. That was an amazing one because we had made the deal, and I remember reading or hearing that there is a big hurricane coming into New Orleans. I called them up I said you guys okay. They said no problem. The next day it was like a disaster. Whether it is Katrina or whether it is depression, which is what we had a few years ago, a couple of years ago, things stop jobs and they also help jobs get built. Good things happen also. Like, the market goes up. Lots of things happen in real estate. It is complicated and it takes a long time. It is not like you wave a magic wand and the building appears. Buildings take years and years and years to develop and to get going, and market forces can change the success or failure of a building. The Trump brand that we are talking about and the value we are talking about, do you think buyers and investors in your property expect the brand to pay returns in value? I think they value the brand, yes. If you take your brand with you from a project, whatever it may be -- this happened to be one example, but I am not tying it to it -- you lose value, it is not a Donald Trump brand property, correct? What do you mean? If you take your name off it? If I take my name off. If you went to the hotel that I stayed at and pulled your name from it and put some other person there, that loses value? Well, when we took our name from the Tampa job, it looked like the market had destroyed that job, so I don't know that it lost value. You would agree, if you yank your brand name from a project, it loses value that day. Do you agree with that? I think the projects are more valuable if my name is on them, yes. The flip side of that, not to try to heckle you with questions, if you pull your brand name from that, there goes the value as well? I don't say there goes the value, but I think the brand has a value. It doesn't mean it won't be successful without the brand. A job can go up without my brand and be very successful also. The deal that was structured for Trump Tower Tampa put a price point in place for units square footage. With your Trump brand on that project, you well exceeded the square footage value, correct? I don't remember. You don't remember. Well, you can assume it because I looked at the numbers. I think so. I am not surprised. It has happened elsewhere. It seems to me that you can go into a project, and tell me if I am wrong, and look at a project, look at the market, see what the market retails at and say if I put my brand here it is going up 20, 30 percent, and then you put that into the equation of your agreement so that you take a piece of that if you are partnering, correct? Very complicated. It is a very complicated -- there is no formula. Each job is different. Each job is totally different. It depends on the developer, the location, the city, the area. Some don't have very much cash, some have a lot of cash. Each job is different. Every one of these jobs is different. My example of going to the marketplace, knowing your square footage of a normal development, and knowing the Trump brand is going to increase that retail value, does that go into your equation when you are doing the deal? Maybe subconsciously, yes. Let's take a two-minute break. Let your lawyers talk real quick. If you want to make any calls, please feel free. Going off the record at 10:57 a.m. End of tape number one. [Whereupon a brief recess was taken] Returning to the record 11:05 a.m., beginning of tape number two. I'm going to show you, this is just one example of what I call the silver book. One of the things that was handed out and what was identified as Chris's Exhibit 1, the first exhibit -- excuse me, the first exhibit, Exhibit 1, was the New York Times Magazine. This one will be Exhibit 2. I will call it the silver book. That's fine. By the way, so the record is clear, Mr. Trump, what is the date of that New York Times Magazine? October '06. It is on the front page right under -- Sure. [Whereupon silver book is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 for identification as of this date] Have you seen this book before? Yes, I have. When you came down to Tampa initially for your one visit you were in Tampa that got so much coverage, this was what was available to everybody showing up that night; do you recall that? Object to the form of the question. I think that's right, yes. Whether you had already laid down a reservation or put money down, this was being put out on the marketplace? Object to the form of the question. I believe that's true. All the marketing -- I have read the agreement, and as lawyers we all know what certain things mean, but with respect to your marketing for this particular project, Trump Tower Tampa, were you personally reviewing all the stuff that was going to be putting out to the marketplace? I wouldn't say everything, but a lot of it, yes. Who was in charge of making sure it was being done right? I would say my -- from my organization. From your group? I would think my son Don Jr. more than anybody else. Myself and my son. The things that get said about you and things that are quoted from you, do you have somebody in your organization that tracks that to make sure people were doing it right? Object to the form of the question. We like to say the right thing, but I don't know that we have anybody that actually tracks it, no. I don't think we would have anybody that tracks it. As I am sitting here, I am thinking our President gets a briefing every morning about what is going on. Do you have something like that, where somebody briefs you on a weekly, monthly, daily basis of what is being out there, put out there? No. About you or maybe you being quoted? No. When something is submitted by your organization or you, whether it be the simplest to the more detailed, like that book, do you have somebody checking the accuracy of it? Within reason. I mean, it is a big organization with a lot of different development, so only within reason. Do you know if anything was marketed incorrectly, quoted wrong with respect to the Trump Tower Tampa? Object to the form of the question. Not to my knowledge. Have you had anybody look? There has been a massive amount of stuff produced in this case. Has somebody gone and reported to you -- and wait for your instruction, because if you are getting an instruction or direction from your lawyer listen to it -- has anybody reported to you that something was done inaccurately? I'm going to instruct you not to answer any communications that you have had with your lawyers, whether it be Alan, myself or anybody else on your legal staff, with respect to a response to Mr. Clark's question. Not to my knowledge. One of the projects, Las Olas -- is that how you pronounce it? Las Olas. Ft. Lauderdale. Yes. Put on hold. That's a licensing deal, licensing fee deal only? I believe so, yes. Is that on this? Yes, it is on the left-hand corner. Beach Resort, Ft. Lauderdale. That was a project, again, just so I am crystal clear in my head, was this a licensing fee, not a partnership? I believe that was a licensing fee, yes. Have you been deposed in that case yet? No. This is the first time you have been deposed in any of these disputes over projects and licensing and whatnot? We have won most of the cases. Good. That's the good news. So, I haven't had to -- it is amazing. May I have a moment. Keep everything like that. I will ask the court reporter, if she would, this is the same Exhibit 1, the New York Times Magazine. Will you be able to get that, if you can? Step back a little bit. The general sense of what we have been talking about, sir, is your property and the value that your brand brings to a project. You would agree with me there is no distinction in this short little ad, this one distinction between licensing and owning, correct? Correct. In fact, nothing in your marketing that you do individually or through your organization makes that distinction; is that correct? Object to the form of the question. I don't really know the answer to that. I mean, some may say something, so I can't answer definitively, but overall, and as I told you before, if we do a licensing job or if it is a job that I own, they are both of equal importance to me. I want to make sure it works out well. Because of what the slogan here is, the finest properties from your name? Correct. With respect to the properties here, we went through some of them and you mentioned licensing arrangements for a host of them, correct? Object to the form of the question. Go ahead. We went through all of them. All of them, but a lot of them were in fact licensing deals? Yes. Whether it is a licensing fee or indeed a partnership arrangement? Some were licensing, some were ownership, yes. Again, no distinction, as far as you know, in this piece; an asterisk, a footnote nothing to make the distinction? That's correct. The properties, as you have it, all have value because your brand name is added to them, correct? There is a value. If you pull that brand name from those projects, they lose value, correct? Object to the form of the question. It depends, again, if the market is going up. And if I pull my name but the market is going up, I think you will recapture any value that's lost, if there is value that's lost, but, yes, I think my name has value. Again, the distinction, I want people that may watch this in Tampa to hear it from you, if you would. If you pull your name, everything being equal, from a project, value goes down? Object to the form of the question. Correct? I don't know that that's necessarily correct. This was a development that was killed because of market conditions. It was -- sadly, I mean, because I wanted to do it very much. I wanted to do it to a certain extent because of George Steinbrenner, who was a friend of mine, who was a very good friend of mine. This was a job that was -- the Tampa job was killed because of market conditions. It wasn't going to get built whether it had my name or not. I don't think it was any less valuable or more valuable whether or not it had my name. This was a dead job. The market crash killed this job. Had the market not crashed, had Lehman not gone bankrupt, had Bear Stearns not gone out of business, had the world and the stock market not gone down by 60 percent or whatever it was, this job would have been built. This is like thousands of other jobs in the United States. It went bad because of market conditions. Had that not happened, this job would have been built, so I don't think it mattered whether my name was on it or not. I don't think it hurt the value of the job that I pulled my name, because they did whatever they did as the people I am talking about, the representatives in Tampa. The job had no value because of market conditions. It had no more value or less value because my name was on it at that point. Of all the properties up there, Trump Tower Tampa is the only one dead in the water? Object to the form of the question. I didn't say that. I mean, I told you there were numerous other jobs up there that didn't get built. This ad was from years ago. This ad was in the go times when everything was getting built. As I told you, Dubai, who would think that Dubai was going to-- Leaving Dubai out of it? Okay, Las Olas didn't get built. It is not dead in the water? It is dead in the water. I think it is dead in the water. Okay. Philadelphia didn't get built. We have not talked about Philadelphia. No, I think -- Was that a licensing deal? Philadelphia was a licensing deal that did not get built because it hit the wrong market. Philadelphia was going to get built. It was a wonderful job in a wonderful location. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt and it and never got built. None of your properties that you owned are dead in the water. Maybe Dubai, based upon what you described? Dubai is dead in the water. Forget about me owning it. It was owned by the government of Dubai. Who would think that they would go under? None of the properties that you own are dead in the water? Object to the form of the question. By the way, even if they got built, they are worth much less money than they would have been. As an example -- Dan, please let him finish his answer. As an example, had we built the Tampa job, had everybody paid millions of millions of dollars for their units based on old pricing, right? Right? They would have lost much more money had we built the job than losing their deposit. They would have lost much more money because the apartments -- they would have paid, during good times, they would have paid $2 million for their apartment. That apartment today would be worth $500,000. They were better off losing their deposit. That's the ups and downs of real estate. In 10 years, 15 years, who is to say that that value returns, sir? Wait -- Your lawsuit is as of now. Understood -- Mr. Trump, and, Dan, please, you guys are kind of talking over each other. Let him finish the question, let him finish an answer. Please, let's kind of slow it down. Your analysis that you just gave us takes out the fact that real estate. We don't know where it is going to be in 10 or 15 years. Objection to the form of the question. Correct? It might go down. It might go up? It might go down. So far I have been right. It has been going down. You would agree -- maybe you don't -- it is better to have something you can touch, open a door to then have nothing in hand? Object to the form of the question. I disagree in this case. The apartments were sold at a very high price during a very good portion of the market, when the market was raging. This was before Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, Bear Stearns, et cetera. Those prices today, had they been bought by the people that you represent, those units would be worth 60 or 70 percent less today. With or without the name Trump, they would be worth 60 or 70 percent less. If somebody paid two or $3 million for a unit, that unit would be worth 60 or 70 percent less. By the way, that's just Tampa. That's the whole country. Some sections are a little bit better than others. New York is better than other sections, as the example, but Tampa got hit very hard by the depression. Those units would be worth a tremendous amount less had they bought them. In other words, had they put up their $2 million, their $2 million would now be worth five or $600,000. Not to continue to debate-- To be honest with you, they were better off that the building wasn't built. Your value in the hotel here in New York City from that stake would arguably be less because of the marketplace, correct? I am going by the Tampa market. I am saying the Tampa market got hit very, very hard, as bad as any market in the country, and a $2 million r apartment in Tampa would be worth about five or $600,000 today. The best thing that happened to your clients was that the building was not built. Trump Tower Tampa sold out though from reservation-wise money down? That's right, at very high prices, and those prices today are worth 70 percent. Sixty, 70 percent less than that sell out. You've gotten an undisclosed number out of this project, correct? Wait, wait, wait. Counsel looked at me, the settlement. The settlement, whatever what's been paid in. I am going to tell Mr. Trump to not answer any questions regarding any settlement of this or any other case. I would ask that we not address and I will stand by the objection and the instructions. I'm with you. My point is I don't know the exact number that you have been paid, because I do know what was accounted for up to your lawsuit but I do not know, and your counsel has instructed you not to tell me, whether you were paid anything. So, that's a number that you pulled out of this project? No, it is not. I am telling you that we are not answering. We have not disclosed any information about any number, whether it was received at all or not. You're saying something that doesn't have a factual basis. So the record is clear, you are taking a confidentiality position on licensing fees pre-default? No. You are taking a position on anything that may have happened post-default, post-loss. That's correct. Even the acknowledgment of the settlement. That's correct. Pre-default, if we were to ask you today how many dollars were you paid while they were performing, you would not take the position. Correct, that's not confidential. That's what I was about to pull out. There are two pockets here. One, we don't know, and you need to follow what your lawyer is telling you and do so, and a number that's been paid to you already as a licensing fee, correct? Okay. You do know that you received some money, and I have the figures, and I don't really care what the number is. You agree with that and you know that, correct? I believe so, yes. Why haven't you returned those funds to this project and given back that money? Object to the form of the question. If the project didn't get built? Well, because I had no obligation to the people that signed me to give it back, number one, and number two, the money was a very small amount relative to -- in fact, I would say that I lost money on this project. If you add all of what everybody has been through including yourselves, I have lost money on this project. This has been a loser, not a positive, and most of the money that I would have made on this project would have been from a percentage of profits had the market stayed strong. Your analysis over the marketplace and what it has done to devaluing property? Yes. You agree with me even with the marketplace and the devaluation of properties, your properties, your Signature properties have more value with your brand name on it? Object to the form of the question. Correct? Well, if they are ever built. You are talking about a project that's not built. You are talking about a project that had no value. So. Whether it had my name on it or not. It wouldn't have made any difference. We are going to switch, based on what we have talked about. We will go straight through and get you out of here. That would be great. That would be much nicer. Thank you, Chris. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Trump. No problem. Mr. Trump, just so the record is clear, I am Ken Turkel. I am co-counsel with Mr. Clark in this case. Your lawyer as well, you have allowed me to ask a portion of these questions today, which we appreciate. By way of general background, there are a few areas I want to clean up with you as we head into some more specifics about the license agreement. The first one is this. One of the comments you made to Mr. Clark was that it was very well proven that the Trump name brings immediate value, using words, you can put them in quotes, "very well proven." Do you have any internal reports or data in your own possession or the possession of the Trump Organization or any of the affiliate companies that document that fact? I can try and find some for you. I don't think we did any, per se, but I think that newspapers have done it showing that there is a value. And if I can find that, I will give it to my attorneys to give to you. The genesis of the question was whether you were referring to reports that may be disseminated publicly or through the media or whether they were internal reports? I believe they would have been from other companies that were disseminated to the media. I don't think we have done it individually. Have you kept any statistics, either internally or do you know of any statistics that have been kept externally that have distinguished between the value brought to a project by the Trump name when you license it as opposed to when you are actually the builder developer? No, I don't know that. Do you have any personal opinions on that? Object to the form of the question. I don't think it would matter. What do you mean? You are saying if it is a license deal or if I own it, would there be a difference in value? Yes, let me rephrase the question as opposed to asking you for your opinion. Mr. Clark took you through the board and the New York Times Magazine article articulating among 2,006 various projects that you were involved in. Do you know as a matter of fact whether the projects with your name licensed had more or less value than the ones in which you actually were builder developer? Object to the form of the question. No. I don't know why it would matter that much, but I don't see it, but I don't know the answer to that. I am not sure it necessarily -- Can I interrupt? With all respect to the lawyers and Mr. Trump, I thought there were different areas, substantive areas that you were going to inquire about and not just followup on Dan's questions. I am actually laying predicate for discussion of the specific terms of the licensing agreement. I want to make sure I understand a few of these things. With respect to deals in which you were licensing, you have identified very candidly for us the different capacities in ways you participated. As we sit here today, do you know whether the actual licensing agreements in the non-Tampa license deals were similar to their fee structure the Tampa deal? It was -- as I said before, every deal is different. Tampa would be different than most of the other deals here. Not different, for better or worse. The deals are just different for lots of different reasons. In the Tampa deal, a percentage of the profits, and really a partnership therefore, was created because of the percentage of the profits, at least in my mind, and that's different. Many of the licensing deals, it is a flat fee or it is a fee per unit or whatever. This was a percentage of profits, so this was actually a little bit more intense deal than most. How long have you been in the real estate development business? Since 1970. In that time frame, from 1970, let's go until 2004, when the initial license agreement was signed, how many entities have you either formed or been a part of that were either partnerships, limited liability companies, joint ventures or corporations? Well, many, many. Far more than what you see up here. This would be just an indication of it, but many beyond what you have here. I don't know the number. You understand, as a business person, an experienced business person, that there is difference between a partnership and a corporation; right? Well, a corporation can be in the form of a partnership, too. You can have corporate partners. Correct. The question is a little bit general. You can have a partnership that has partners in it which are corporations? Absolutely. You understand those are different legal types of entities, a partnership versus corporation? Yes. Objection to the form of the question. Equally, do you understand that a limited liability company is another type of legal entity? Object to the form of the question. Yes. How about a joint venture. Have you ever done a joint venture agreement? Yes. Do you understand the joint venture to be a different type of entity? They are all going to be. One of the points you made is that you viewed your participation in Tampa as a partnership because of the fact that you were receiving a portion of the profits; is that right? Object to the form of the question. That was my view. That was my view. That was your view? That is my view and was my view. What you are trying to clarify for me? You hold that view today also? That is correct. When Simdag -- strike that. You have talked about how you got interest in the Tampa project. You have referenced your relationship with Mr. Steinbrenner and Derek Jeter. Did Simdag initially come to you seeking the use of your name for this project? I believe so. Do you know whether the idea to do it as a licensing agreement versus a joint venture, a corporation or a limited liability company or general or limited partnership was your idea or Simdag's? I don't know. Would somebody else have handled that initial discussion at the Trump Organization? No. If you don't know, who would know? Nobody. Explain that to me. Wait. Objection to the form of the question. Explain that to me doesn't ask him. What you are trying -- When you tell me nobody knows, I am assuming somebody was initially approached by Simdag or vice versa. Right, it was so many years ago -- you are talking many years, and I handled it, but I don't exactly know did we call them, did they call us. I think they called us, but I have had many, many different things happen over the years. While I like to pride myself on having a very good memory, I can't tell you if many years ago I called them or they called me. I think they called me. Would there be any document or record of that initial contact? No. If they called you, would it be your recollection that you handled the communication personally? Yes. Do you know, as you sit here today, whether the idea to do this as a licensing agreement versus you being a builder developer was your idea or theirs? Well, I think it was common sense. It was a license and because we didn't have the local knowledge that I discussed before, so the concept of being the builder developer would not have really entered into the equation. Let's go ahead and mark this as Exhibit 3. [Whereupon, a copy of a license agreement entered into between Mr. Trump as licensor and Simdag/Robel as licensee is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for identification as of this date] The court reporter has handed you what was marked as Exhibit 3 for this deposition. Correct. I can represent to you it is a copy of the license agreement that was entered into between you as licensor and Simdag/Robel as licensee. Are you familiar with that document? Yes. As a predicate to discussing the document, who owns the Trump name as a piece of property, as a piece of intellectual property? I do. You individually, correct? Yes. Do you own all of the related service marks to the name? Yes. Object to the form of the question. What is the objection? It calls for a legal conclusion? Good point. I would assume you know whether it is legal conclusion or not. I assume I can make an objection, too. I am sorry, Chris. I was just mulling that one over. Do you recall when trademark protection was sought for the Trump name and related service marks? No. Whose idea was it to get trademarked? I will caution you, if it came from one of your lawyers, don't tell me. My lawyers. Is the Trump name trademarked for use in products other than real estate ventures? Yes. Have you used it in that fashion? Yes. Why? Because it's got something that people like; shirts, ties at Macy's, cufflinks. Are those cufflinks you are wearing Trump cufflinks? Yes, they are quite nice. They are handsome, yes, they are. Water? Yes, other things. Yes, we do think that it seems to be selling quite nicely. Do you recall, and you can just give me a year, even a frame of years when you started doing business with the Trump name outside of the world of real estate; in other words, when you began licensing to get into products and other sort of items? Probably six or seven years ago. Was it before or after the Apprentice? A little bit before. When you say the Apprentice has increased the value, we can agree that there was some value to the name pre-Apprentice; right? That is correct. Certainly enough value that you could use it on cufflinks or bottled water? Yes. Did you ever do a licensing agreement of any kind? If you look at Exhibit 3, it is dated October 27, 2004, which was right at six years ago? Okay. Almost a month shy of six years, prior to October 27, 2004, had you done any other licensing agreements with your name? I believe so, yes. Do you recall which ones? I don't know. I think maybe Miami was before this. I am not sure. I would have to check with my lawyers and check with the people as to the chronology, but yes, I believe we did others prior to this. Would the Tampa Simdag license agreement at the very least have been one of the first five or 10? One of the earlier ones, yes. When you say one of the earlier ones, within the world of real estate? Yes, of real estate. I believe you discussed this with Mr. Clark, but just to confirm it, as far as you recall all of the license agreements have been confidential? As far as I know, they are all confidential, yes. Let's take a look at this one. I want to go through some specific terms of this with you. In the preamble, if you would turn to the first page, which says License Agreement at the top, so it is going to be the first page after the cover page. Okay. Turn the cover page over. Okay. It is on the back of your cover page. I am sorry, it says License Agreement? Correct. There is a recognition that this agreement is entered into on October 27, 2004, between Donald J. Trump, worldwide renowned builder and developer of real estate, who enjoys the highest reputation in his field among others. You are defined as the licensor. Do you see that? Yes. I don't mean this question to be -- Dan used the word heckle earlier. Why is there a recognition in there that you are a worldwide renowned builder and developer. Why is that put into the agreements? Because we want them to know that we have a very important reputation and we don't want them to screw up. It is a way of putting in writing with the party who you are going to license your name to? That's correct. That your reputation is an important thing? We want them to do a good job. Simdag/Robel is listed here this is October 27, 2004. How long -- strike that. What period of due diligence did you undergo with respect to Simdag before you agreed to sign this agreement with them? Objection to the form of the question. Go ahead. Due diligence is always very tough. You hire people or you use your own people and you go into the background of people. The background of the people in the partnership was quite a good background. They were respected, they were really well known in the Tampa area, and they really had very good reputation. We did a fairly thorough check at the time. It was years ago, but we did a fairly thorough check, and everybody seemed to think they were quite good people. We also then checked the real estate of the location and a lot of other things going into a decision like this. We felt that the people, the quality of the people involved was very high. As you sit here today, do you have any recollection as to how many projects Simdag/Robel had built in the Tampa Bay area as of October 27, 2004? Well, this is a separate company or group for the purpose of doing this particular job, but there were people that were involved with development and there were people that had just very good reputations. But this was set up -- I believe that name was set up for specifically this job. That's a fair point. Let me rephrase the question. As of October 27, 2004, I would assume you knew how many condominium development projects the principals of Simdag had been involved in prior to this agreement? My people did at the time, they did a background check. I don't know exactly, but the people that are involved with me in this capacity did a background check and they found them to be a quality group. I remember the word quality used, a quality group of individuals. Do you know whether that background check was memorialized in any sort of document? I don't. I would love to find out. I mean, I will check it for you. If it was memorialized in a document, would it have been a Trump Organization document, corporate document? Yes, I believe so, yes. Who would the people have been who did the due diligence? I would have to check that. An executive or a group of executives within the organization. If I were to describe for your lawyer to perhaps produce to us any documents memorializing the due diligence performed by Trump individually or the Trump Organization? Right. That would be sufficient for you to at least do a search to see if they exist? Absolutely. Any objection that I may have -- Absolutely. I am trying to find out the logistics if it is producible otherwise. REQUEST NOTED We see in the second paragraph of this document that you are the sole exclusive owner of the United States trademark regulations identified in schedule one. Correct. Which we turn back to schedule one, because what is a document without its schedules. Schedule one lists trademark Trump Tower with the registration number of 1688083. We can agree, as we sit here today, that's not the only trademark that you registered; right? That's correct. Certain other rights in the name trademark service marked designation and identification Trump. That goes back to what we were discussing earlier, which is the protection of your name as a brand; right? Right, yes. Let's go to what is the third whereas clause, which says, "Whereas Licensee intends to develop a first-class luxury residential condominium building of approximately 190 units." Do you see that language? Yes, I do. Do you know, as you sit here today, whether Simdag or the principals of Simdag had ever developed a luxury residential condominium unit of that size or quality in their past? No, I don't believe so. This was the biggest thing in Tampa, so this was an unusually large development. I started building very big buildings and I did a very good job of it, but at some point you had to start -- I don't know, they had a wonderful reputation, but I don't know that they developed anything of this -- this was a very large job. When you had discussed with me earlier that these principals enjoyed a good reputation in Tampa, other than being able to repeat for me that your people told you that, you have no specific facts that you recall today? No, but when I met them I was very impressed with them as individuals. I went to Tampa, I met with them. I was very impressed with them as individuals. If you go down to paragraph sub four of the same whereas clause, it would read that the licensee, that being Simdag/Robel, "intends to design, develop, construct, operate and maintain the building according to the Trump standards"? Correct. As herein defined so as to maximize the value of the Tower property for the benefit of Licensee and Licensor, correct? Yes. We can agree that you weren't going to design the building; right? Object to the form of the question. Not design it per se, but make sure the design was first class. You had the rights to review the design specs? Absolutely, and we did. You weren't going to pick the architect, though, correct? I think we could have, but we were very impressed with what we saw. When it comes to the actual developing, as you stated earlier, you weren't going to be down at Tampa with the sheetrock installers; right? Objection to the form of the question. No, but had the building proceeded, I would have been at Tampa quite a bit. Did you have any responsibility under this license agreement for the actual construction of the property other than that to review Simdag's work? That's a big thing. We had very strong review capability and requirements under this agreement. Had the job proceeded, I would have been in Tampa quite a bit to make sure it was going to go. I or representatives from my organization, but I would have been there actually a lot. This was a very exciting job to me. As it relates to the agreement -- I think you lost my question somewhere in that answer. The actual responsibility to design, develop, construct and operate belonged to Simdag/Robel; is that correct? Object to both the question and the comment that proceeded it. He answered the question, and it didn't get lost. He answered it. I disagree. That's why I reasked. I would rather stay with the answer that I gave because we did have a lot to do with the design of this building and that's the way it was. Did you have any contractual obligation with respect to this building and the design of the building beyond reviewing what was submitted to you by Simdag? Objection to the form of the question. I could have rejected what I saw and then probably have gotten very much involved, but we liked very much what we saw. It was the opposite. Turn the page and let's look at that. I think it is set forth pretty clearly. What page? It will say page eight on the bottom. Eight, different page. You should see a sub F. It is a different page. Yours may be paginated -- go to seven. Sub F. Prior to commencing construction, do you have that? I have the right to review. Are we on the same document? Why are the pages-- I think it is paginated differently. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Trump and Mr. Turkel. That thing has gone off twice and people know that I am in an important deposition. Let me check to see who is trying to reach me. There it is. Sorry, it is my fault. Thank you. Are you all right. Yes. One of the points you made, Mr. Trump, was that you had the right to reject the final plans and specifications for the property, correct? That's correct. If you look at paragraph F, that sets forth the mechanics of how that works? Yes. Do you need a moment to review it or are you familiar with it? Go ahead. As it sets forth in paragraph F, "The Licensee" -- that being Simdag -- "is required to submit its final plans and specs therefore or specifications to the Licensor," and that you have the 15-business-day window to review those, do you see that? Correct, yes, I do. As you stated, within those 15 business days you are allowed to deliver a report to the licensee either approving those final plans and specifications or identifying the deficiencies, for lack of better word in it; right? Right. At any point in time, did you send a deficiency notice to Simdag/Robel with respect to the final plans and specifications? I don't believe so. We thought they were doing really good work. You approved what they said? I believe that's correct. If you had disapproved that, you are allowed to send a notice to them of their deficiencies; right? That is correct. After they obtained that, they are going to resubmit plans to you and you can approve those; right? Change it or do something. Were you aware at the time or are you now after essentially three of those cycles of approving or disapproving Simdag at that point was allowed to pull out of the development? Object to the form of the question. You mean according to this document? Yes, sir. Yes, there was something to that effect, yes. Go down to paragraph H -- strike that. Before we do that, look at the bottom of paragraph F. You will see a provision there saying the second, I think it is the last sentence saying, "Licensee shall construct or cause construction of the Tower property substantially in accordance with the final plans and specifications approved by licensor, which shall adhere to and comply with the Trump standards"; right? Yes. When we get down to it as far as protecting your brand, the essential component of this contract to you is that you have the approval rights, correct? Yes. And that they build it in accordance with your standards? At a high level, yes. When you are marketing the project, certainly your expectation as you advertise and market the project is that the buyer's expected to be at that level of quality associated with your name, correct? Objection to the form of the question. Right. If we look down to paragraph H, and this just caught my eye, Simdag was going to pay the licensor, Trump, basically reimbursement for any trips made down to Tampa, correct? Yes. That was capped at, I believe there is number there, "not more than two occasions in each 12 consecutive month period from the date hereof to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for the building"; right? Yes. For two trips a year, they were going to reimburse you, right? That's correct. Why was that provision put in here? It is very standard in any contract such as this or in any hotel contract. You are always reimbursed if you travel. It is a very standard clause. That's I would say, always, always in this kind of an agreement. When you are an owner of a project, in other words, as you pointed out to Mr. Clark earlier, the various projects that you have built with either your own money or financing you have obtained and you have guaranteed, do you get reimbursed by your partners for coming to visit the project? Oftentimes, yes. If I were to ask Chris Griffin to produce documents memorializing the partnerships that you were a builder or owner in, we would see provisions to that? I believe so, yes. If I have a partner and I am traveling, or likewise if the other partner is traveling, they would routinely put in for expenses. Whether it is in an agreement or not, they would put in for their expenses or I would put in for my expenses. Even if you were the majority owner? Yes, if I was the majority owner. If I had 60 percent and I was traveling, and it was very costly but to the benefit of the job, I put in for the expenses. Yes, pretty standard. Why in this particular agreement, if you know, were the reimbursement obligations capped at two visits every two months through occupancy? Well, because I am sure while they liked us and respected us, they didn't want us to travel there five times a week at great expense. Do you recall ever submitting either for your own benefit or the benefit of someone within Trump Organization a reimbursement report under this provision of the contract? No, it may have happened, but I don't recall that. How many trips did you make -- there was never a certificate of occupancy issued. How many trips did you make to Tampa before this? I think two or three. I would have made many had it gone forward. Let's take a look at page nine. Okay. As a further predicate to this next group of questions, we can agree you never signed a personal guarantee on anything relating to the Trump Tower Tampa; right? That's correct. Not with a bank or any private lender, correct? No, that's correct. We can agree your name individually or your corporation's name was not on any promissory note that may have been issued to finance the project? That is correct. Paragraph six of page nine provides the situations in which you as licensor of your name shall have "the absolute right to terminate the agreement and the rights licensed thereunder upon 10 days prior written notice." Do you see that? Yes, I do. Take a look at page 10 now. I want to concentrate on two provisions in this. Let's take a look at paragraph G first. "The construction of the building shall not fail to commence within 18 months unless such delay shall result from strikes, lockouts or labor disputes, inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes therefor, acts of God, governmental restrictions, regulations or controls, enemy or hostile government action, civil commotion, riot or insurrection, fire or other casualty or other event similar to the foregoing beyond the reasonable control of licensee." Okay. The reason I read that is this allows you, paragraph G, to pull out if they didn't commence construction within 18 months for a laundry list of what was defined as unavoidable delays; right? Okay. What it is aimed at is when you look at these acts things that the builder itself, Simdag, could not control, correct? Objection to the form of the question. You can go ahead and answer it. Yes, that's true. The building didn't commence construction within 18 months; right? No. Let's just -- I want to pull back from the actual for a second, all right, and talk about the intent of this one provision. If I am a purchaser who laid down $200,000 of their deposit money to buy a unit at Trump Tower Tampa? Right. And I have seen the plans, I have seen the silver book Mr. Clark showed, I have seen what this glorious building is going to be, whether that building gets built in two years or three years, we know that if it doesn't start construction in 18 months it may not be called Trump Tower; right? Object to the form of the question. Well, we would have the right to pull out if we wanted to. We didn't want to. Do you know whether anyone within the premarketing of this disclosed to the buyers that you had this right to pull out? Object to the form of the question. No, I don't know that. Have you ever disclosed that when you were advertising or marketing a project of yours? Objection to the form of the question. I don't think it is something that would be in advertising or marketing. I mean, if you were going to do advertising or marketing, then every job ever built would have to take agreements in many cases that are many times larger and put, put every single word or every single paragraph into the newspaper, and I don't think that can happen from a practical standpoint. From a contractual standpoint, you had actually agreed that this entire agreement was confidential, correct? Yes. For you to disclose that, you would have breached that confidentiality, wouldn't you? But who would ever disclose agreements in an advertisement? You're advertising for apartments. That would mean -- some partnership agreements are hundreds of pages long. Does that mean that every time we take an ad you have to disclose the entire agreement in its entirety? I mean, I don't think that would -- first of all, it has never been done in the history of real estate. Second of all, I don't think it would be very practical, and that's why it isn't done. Do you know whether any other real estate developers of your magnitude licensed their name the way you did? I don't know. I am not sure, but yes, I am sure they have been, but hotel companies do it all the time routinely, Ritz Carlton, Four Seasons, routinely. It is something that's not uncommon? Mostly probably real estate people too. I just don't know of any, but in the hotel business it is routinely done. Do you know whether it is done in the condominium sales business? I think it is, but I just can't give you any examples right now. Take a look at paragraph I in the same group of sub paragraphs. Another basis which would have allowed you to pull your name from affiliation with this project and to terminate this license agreement was if closings for at least 70 percent of the residential condominiums units in the building had not occurred or were not under bona fide binding purchase contracts within 30 months from the commencement date again, excepting out unavoidable delays; right? Yes. First of all, do you think Simdag could have done anything to avoid the market conditions at the time? Object to the form of the question. Probably not. Nobody else could in the whole country, so I have to use the word probably, but probably not. With respect to the closings, do you know how many units were presold at Trump Tower Tampa? No, I don't know. I knew at the time, but this is years later. I don't know now. Answer this if you know. Why do you have a provision in your license agreement that allows you to pull out if there is not over 70 percent of sales? Well, I think 70 percent would have taken care of much of the cost of building. I think that's a term that's -- that's a number that's used, that percentage is used a lot of times to determine pretty much the cost of the building, 70 percent of sales. You are not paying the cost of the building; right? No, but we want to make sure that the building is paid for. You and I can agree-- If our name is on it. Whether they sell 60 percent, 70, 80 or 90 percent, you are still going to get paid your license fee? No, you are wrong. Why am I wrong on that? Because I am getting a percentage of profits in this case. There are two components to the license fee, so let me rephrase it. That's a fair comment. The flat fee portion of your license fee is going to get paid regardless of the amount of sales, correct? Well, if they pay it. You say it will be paid. I don't know that it will be paid. If they pay it, it will be paid. The dominance of my fee was going to be as a percentage of profits. You would be entitled to the flat portion regardless of whether they sold 70 percent; right? I believe so, yes. Take a look at paragraph eight, discontinuation of use of the marks. I think this is somewhat axiomatic. If you terminated the agreement, they have to stop using your name; right? Correct. You believe somebody buys their unit in Trump Tower and you pull your name under either paragraph G or I and they may not own their unit in Trump Tower anymore; right? Objection to the form of the question. Say it again. Sure, if someone bought their unit in Trump Tower and they prebought it and plunked down 200, signed their binding purchase contract, and you decided to pull your name out either under paragraph G or I when commencement of construction begins, they may be moving into a non-Trump tower unit. In theory, I would have the right to take my name off. It is something I wouldn't want to do. In fact, I -- we fought like hell to make sure this building could get built, but unfortunately market conditions didn't allow that to happen. We can agree at some point you sent Simdag a notice of default under this licensing agreement; right? Yes. Asked that they discontinue use of your name; right? I believe so, yes. Have you ever done that in any other licensing agreement other than Trump Tower Tampa? Not that I can remember. I may have, but not that I can remember right now. If I do, I will let you know. Thank you. If there was a document memorializing that, that would be something that either in-house counsel or Chris Griffin would be able to find? It is possible. I just can't think of it right now. REQUEST NOTED Take a look at page 11 and paragraph 10 that says Assignment? Yes. This provision, I am going to paraphrase, and if your lawyer objects I can read it a little more thoroughly. It provides you the right, licensor is with the right to assign the license agreement to a related party, which is actually defined in that same paragraph; right? Okay. We can agree on that? Did you take a look at it? Yes. Do you know whether this agreement was ever assigned? I don't know. Trump Organization is a corporation which is a party to this lawsuit. Is the Trump Organization under common control with or owned more than 50 percent by you? Yes. Object to the form of the question. As it relates to your licensing agreements, what is the relationship between you, Donald Trump individually, and the Trump Organization? Objection to the form of the question. Go ahead. I own the Trump Organization. For instance, when you enter into a licensing agreement such as Exhibit 3, you obviously individually don't administer it day to day? That's correct. Is that delegated to the Trump Organization? Yes. That would be the entity that would deal with the day-to-day operation of this license agreement? That's correct. The employees, we have seen names throughout the documents. I think Jill Cremer is one of the names? Yes. Various attorneys, perhaps your son, when they are working on this project, the Trump Tower Tampa, they were working under the purview of Trump Organization? Object to the form of the question. That's correct. Let's go ahead to paragraph 15, License Confidentiality. This is the confidentiality agreement that we discussed. When you were negotiating the license agreement, who initially suggesting that it be confidential? I think most of my agreements are confidential. The reasons you stated earlier were to prevent competitors from having your business terms; is that correct? That's correct. Have you ever carved out in any of your license agreements an exception to the confidentiality to disclose the fact that your participation was merely as a licensor? Object to the form of the question. I don't know. You would have to ask my lawyers. I have so many agreements. As I told you numerous times, each agreement is different and you really have to speak to my lawyers. It is possible. Do you know whether in any of the license agreements you referred to earlier with respect to the Trump Signature properties that Mr. Clark questioned you on it was disclosed in the marketing materials or other public disclosures to potential buyers that this is a project which Mr. Trump has licensed his name to? I don't know. I mean, you would have to look. There would be nothing wrong with our doing it. I don't know if it was done or not. When you say there would be nothing wrong with you doing that -- No, if they put it in, it would be fine. I wouldn't have objected to them doing that. If they did it, fine. Would you have had an issue with it if they did it in a situation where you had a confidentiality agreement? I assume they would ask us approval or whatever, but that would be -- I would certainly give that approval if they asked. I guess the specific is you can't recall ever having done that? No, I cannot. I apologize to everybody. I need to take just a couple of minute break. We can take a few? Two minutes, I apologize. Going off the record 12:03 p.m. [Whereupon a brief recess was taken] Returning to the record 12:15 p.m., beginning of tape number three. Mr. Trump, referring you back to the licensing agreement, license agreement on page 15, paragraph 16B, there is a line there that begins, "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein including, but not limited to the provisions of paragraph 3 hereof, Licensor shall not be responsible for and shall have no liability to Licensee or to any third parties for any design or construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures or for safety precautions and programs employed by or on behalf of licensee with respect to the design and construction of the building." The paragraph goes on to state that, "The licensor is not an architect, engineer, et cetera, or other license professional, and disavows any warranties for those activities and subsequent approvals." If you look at paragraph three, which it refers to, that was the paragraph you and I were discussing earlier which provided you, I believe, those review rights? Correct. I guess in sum what we can agree is other than what has been carved out by those review rights, you as licensor of your name were not going to be responsible for any of the construction means or methods, correct? Correct, other than we were very diligent in wanting the building to be a magnificent building and built at a very high standard, but I was not responsible, yes. Understand this, Mr. Trump. Underlying all of this I think is a recognition by us, by you, by your attorney in these pleadings everywhere that with respect to the license of your name, your expectation is that the project will be built in the highest quality; right? That is correct. I think we can agree and we have agreed that under the license agreement your review rights were meant to try and confirm that it was built with the highest quality, correct? Correct. In looking at this one provision, though, ultimately if you approve the plans and Simdag had built a shoddy unit, that was going to be their responsibility, not yours; right? That is correct. We had no liability. Looking -- I want to talk about the fee schedule on this because it has been the subject of a lot of questions, schedule two. The license fee, schedule two, is the method and amount by which you were going to get paid by Simdag for the use of your name, correct? Yes. To be precise, not the use of just your name, not just Trump, but the Trump marks, and what I'd like to call the related service; right? Correct, yes. One of those is -- you have a crest, don't you? Yes. Where is the bottle of water? I this it is on there. That's true; right. It is a coat of arms, correct? That's correct. That would be one of the service marks that you authorized? That is correct. I think also isn't there an intertwining with your name and related marks of the color gold? Not that I know. I thought we saw that somewhere in your trademark product? I don't think so. The first paragraph of schedule two requires the licensee, Simdag, to pay Donald Trump, the licensor, for the license of the Trump marks as herein provided, a nonrefundable license fee of $2 million, payable as follows, and there is a payment schedule 125,000 upon execution, $125,000 upon approval of the plans, and then a million 750 in 26 consecutively monthly installments. Do you see that? Yes. In paragraph three, if they had unpaid installments existing on the date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy, you could accelerate the balance? Right. In sum, by the date that the issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy occurs, you are going to make $2 million if they comply with their obligations; right? If they comply, yes. This is nonrefundable the 2 million; right? That's correct. Basically whether the project goes or not, you can keep that money; right? Yes, I don't know what they paid. I don't know what the number is, but we can get that. We have talked about it -- I don't even know what it is. I am talking about what they agreed to pay? What they agreed to pay is one thing. What they paid is another. I think one thing you had said earlier is these amounts are arrived at ad hoc. A deal is a deal? Right. The additional license fee set forth below in paragraph two relates to different formulas concerning the unit sales; right? Yes. And to summarize it, if the average gross sales of the units exceeded 300 per square foot; that was a threshold; right? They had to be more than 300 a square foot? Right. You see that in the preamble sub A? Yes. Then the licensee shall pay the Licensor as an additional License fee an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount by which the average gross sale exceeded the 300 per square foot and/or less than 350 a square foot? Correct. If sales and the sale prices went between 300 and 350, you were going to get 5 percent of the difference; right? Correct. Ten percent if it went between 350 and 400 -- or 450, I'm sorry; right? Right. Twenty-five percent if gross sales went above 450, correct? Correct. If you turn to the next page, "That additional license fee shall be computed and paid on the date which is the first to occur of the closing of 85 percent of the condo units; right? Right. Or two years after the date when the first residential condominium in the unit closes; right? Right. Earlier in this deposition and throughout you have maintained that when you used the word partner, referring to your participation in Trump Tower Tampa, you did so because you had participation in the sales? Objection to the form of the question. Is that correct? Correct. Is that a fair statement of what your perspective was at the time and as is now? Sales, or you can almost define it as profit, because at a certain level that becomes profit, but I have a percentage of sales and or profit. This additional participation in excess of your $2 million-dollar license fee is referred to in this agreement as an additional license fee; right? That is correct. It is not referred to as your partnership participation, is it? I view it, I have always viewed it as form of partnership because we are participating in sales and we are participating in the profits and we are participating in percentages of the amount sold, so I always viewed that as a partner. So we can be clear, you signed this agreement individually, correct? Yes. It is not Trump Organization who signed it; right? I don't believe so, no. Donald J. Trump in his individual capacity. You can look at the signature page to confirm if you want. Yes. It is page 60? I see it, yes. I am going to assume, you correct me if I am wrong, that you read it before you signed it, did you not? Yes. I am going to assume that you agreed to everything that was contained in the document before you signed it; right? Certainly, my lawyers did the document, but I certainly agreed to it. Given your experience in the business world, if you didn't agree to it, I doubt you would have signed it; is that fair? Perhaps that's correct. When schedule two was placed in front of you and you saw this money defined as an additional license fee, you didn't tell them, recharacterize that, I view that as my partnership? I view it as a partnership. I didn't agree with the document in great detail, but I view it as a partnership because I am sharing essentially as a percentage of sales, so I viewed that as a partnership, but I also viewed all of the other things I was doing as partnership. I was -- we were working on the building, we were helping to design the units. We were putting in certain size windows and were requiring certain size ceiling heights. We were doing many other things. That is really a form -- to me it is partnership. We are working together with other people. We have licensing agreements. It is much less than this, but we were working very hard on this building. I viewed this as a partnership in that sense. Given that you viewed it that way when you drafted this document, you certainly had the option to enter into a formal legal partnership with Simdag if you had wanted it, didn't you? I guess this was just the way we did it. Look at page 15 at the bottom, 16E? 16 what? E. What page, again? Paragraph -- page 15, miscellaneous sub E? Back to 15. Right. Are you on the bottom of page 15? Okay, go ahead. If you look at paragraph E, it provides, "This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties" -- That's correct. -- hereto? Right. Just so I can finish, "with respect to the subject matter hereof." This was the only agreement that defined your relationship with Simdag, wasn't it? I believe so, yes. There is not another contract out there between Trump Organization and Simdag, is there? No, I don't think so. We can agree -- Unless there was an amendment to this agreement. I will show you one amendment to the license agreement. However, that amendment I think just relates to the fee. To wrap up this line of questioning, you never formed a joint venture under the laws of the State of Florida and New York with Simdag, did you? I don't know. You did form a general or limited partnership under the laws of New York or Florida with Simdag, did you? I don't know. You never formed a limited liability company under the laws of New York or Florida with Simdag, did you? I don't know. You would have to ask my lawyers. I would assume your answer is the same with respect to a corporation? Yes. I would assume as to all of those categories of legal entities, whether it was the law of New York, Florida, Delaware or any other state, you have no knowledge as to whether you formed a separate legal entity with Simdag? I have no knowledge of it, no. Is it fair to say, Mr. Trump, as we sit here today, that the license agreement is the only document you know of which defines your relationship with Simdag? Yes. Let's mark this as Exhibit 4. [Whereupon first amendment to the license agreement is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for identification as of this date] Exhibit 4. Yes, sir the first amendment to the license agreement. Exhibit 4, Mr. Trump, is the first amendment to the license agreement. This was made March 31, 2006. Do you see that preamble? Yes. What do you recall the conditions of the real estate market being in Tampa, specifically in the State of Florida in general, in March of 2006? I don't know. I can't place myself in that period of time. I know they became very bad shortly after that, but I can't place myself in that period of time. You kind of have two answers in there. I am asking you because you seem to have a pretty good knowledge of the real estate market, and when it crashed, do you know whether it had yet crashed in Tampa at that time? I don't know. Do you recall what the purpose was to this first amendment to the license agreement? Object to the form of the question. Let me reask it. It was kind of sloppy. Do you recall why this first amendment was entered into? Object to the form of the question. I have to look at it. I do mention the word profit. That's probably where I am also thinking about the word profit. I don't know why it was entered into, probably because we were doing a lot more work on this project than we thought and maybe they weren't paying the fees as they were supposed to. If you look at paragraph one, this is basically amending schedule two, which was the document we just reviewed, which was the initial fees attachment to the license agreement? Right. In section 1A, it says that, "Schedule 2 is hereby amended as follows," and Section 1, license fee, the amount of 2 million is changed to 4 million. We can agree that one of the things the first amendment to license agreement did was it upped your flat fee from 2 million to 4 million; right? Correct. Was any additional consideration paid by or offered by you individually or Trump Organization to create that change in flat fee? Objection to the form of the question. I would have to check that and find it out. I am not exactly sure. I know we worked much harder on this development than we had suspected we would. It is possible they weren't paying us the original fees so this was changed. Why -- I mean, this may be best the question. Why if they weren't paying you would the flat fee be increased? Because, it is sort of obvious. I would actually have to ask my executives as to why the amendment was made. I really wasn't involved in the amendment, although I might have signed it. Did I sign it? You definitely signed it. Okay, I don't remember the amendment, but I could ask my executives why it was changed. Who would we talk to. Which executives would know that? Perhaps Don Jr. Your son? Yes, that's who I would speak to initially to find out why it was changed. If I were going to create a hierarchy of Trump Organization employees who were dealing with the Tampa project, would Don Jr. have been at the top of that hierarchy? I think so, yes. Who would have been immediately under him, reporting to him? I don't know. You would have to ask him. If you look down at 1B, basically how this was changed was that the monthly installments were upped to $129,091 a month for 22 months. That's in paragraph 1B or 1C. Additionally it appears that the additional license fee as it is defined in this agreement was changed, and instead of being tied to -- I think it was changed because of the complexity of the square foot prices in the other agreement, and the square foot prices in the other agreement under that transaction, I would have done better than this. And I believe -- now, this is just subject to checking with executives, but I believe that the square foot prices under the agreement would have amounted to too much money for them to pay, and so we went into a net sales profit. In other words, this was to their benefit, but they paid a little more upfront, but this agreement was to their benefit. I believe that was it, but I will certainly check. I don't know if you have looked through this as we have been discussing it or if you have an independent recollection of it? I am looking through it as I am discussing it. Why don't do you that instead of taking you -- I have done it. You have done it? You are a fast reader, Mr. Trump. The way this worked was basically you were going to get 50 percent in net sales profit as defined and they provide an example? As opposed to getting an absolute hard amount over a certain amount. This was net. This would be after expenses. This was on a net basis, whereas the other was a hard and fast percentage over a certain amount, $350, $450. Correct, it eliminated the formula predicated on square footage? It is possible that that formula did not work for the builders of the building, and that's why they made this change. Mechanically they put an example in paragraph two that says if the net sales profit was 20 million and you had already received your 4 million, you were going to get 10 million less the four. In other words, they were going to net out the flat fee? Correct, which under the other agreement it didn't do it. This is probably -- depending on the sales, this is probably a worse deal for us. Worse deal in the event that the project was built out and sold, but in the event that it wasn't, you were making more on your nonrefundable fee, correct? If they paid it. Of course, that's the assumption in the contract, is they are going to pay what they are obligated to pay? Which, by the way, I don't think they did. We are going to talk about that because you had to sue them; right? I did. On page two, if you see paragraph C there right before paragraph two? Right. It says, "The additional license fee shall be made promptly following the date when a sufficient number of the units in the building have closed and the proceeds thereof result in full repayment of all debt," and they call that the debt repayment date. Then following to that date, "The Licensee shall remit to Licensor," which is you, "50 percent of the net profits." So, very simply, once they paid off their debt, you were going to split the net profit? Correct. Again, this money, whether it be the flat fee, which is called the license fee, or the percentage based fee, is referred to as an additional license fee; right? Right. Is that right? Yes. I think we are good on talking about what they may have paid you up to the fault of default, are we not, Chris? Yes, in terms of confidentiality. Right. He is not going to tell you not to answer this question, which is do you recall what Simdag paid you up to the point of your lawsuit against them for defaulting on the license agreement? No, I don't know. Any idea? No. Would Donald Jr. know that? No, my accountants would know that. Had they paid anything? Yes, I think so, but they didn't pay what they were supposed to pay. Those checks pursuant to the agreement would have been made payable to Donald Trump individually, correct? I don't know. I don't know who they are made payable to, but I don't believe they paid it. Are your accountants in-house -- for, instance if we want to ask for those documents, are they within the company's control, or do I have to go to a third-party accountant? Anything I give them are within the company. Yes. With full reservation of any objections-- Absolutely. You want to know where they are located? I just want to know if I put in a request to production to a party I will not be told there is a third-party accountant. No, it is information we can provide. Let's look at Exhibit 5. [Whereupon copy of complaint is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 for identification as of this date] Exhibit 5 is a copy of a complaint filed by you individually against Simdag/Robel and its principals in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Have you ever seen that document? Yes. Being as you are the individual plaintiff on it, I would assume it is fair to say you authorized its filings? Yes. Was it shown to you prior to being filed? My lawyer showed it to me. Did you read it? I looked it over. Take a look at paragraph eight, if you could. Yes, I have it. Can you read through that paragraph really quickly, Mr. Trump, please? It is not that long. It goes to the beginning of the next pages. Okay. Is everything in paragraph eight true and correct based on your understanding of your relationship with Simdag? Yes. You attached the license agreement to this complaint -- strike that. Your lawyers attached the license agreement to this complaint as Exhibit A. Were you aware of that? No, but it seems appropriate. You're suing for breach of the license agreement, correct? Yes. To summarize what this complaint was about, it was suing for payment of the license agreement, correct? Okay. Do you agree with that? I guess, yes. Count one was a breach of contract and the contract referred to is the license agreement; right? Yes. Were you aware when you filed this lawsuit that the license agreement and its terms were going to become a part of the public record? No, they were in default of the agreement. They didn't pay us, among other things, and we had to bring a lawsuit. What I am asking is when you filed that lawsuit, did you give any thought to the fact that there were purchasers that had placed deposits on your building with your name on it who were going to be affected negatively by the fact that it was being disclosed in the public record that you were just licensing that building? Object to the form of the question. The market had already affected the purchasers. The purchasers were affected by the market. Did you go through that thought process when you filed this. In other words, did you give any thought to the fact that it may negatively impact purchasers that had put down money on it? By this time, the building looked like it was not going to happen, as were thousands of other buildings in the United States. There were two default letters, attached to this as Exhibits C and D, demanding monies under the license agreement. If you turn to Exhibit C and D? Okay. Both of them were written by Bernard Diamond on behalf of Donald J. Trump. Who is Mr. Diamond? An attorney with the organization. With Trump Organization? Yes. Did you authorize him to send both of these letters, Exhibit C and D? Yes. Chris, understanding you're going to object as confidential, just to wrap up my questioning on this -- You ultimately resolved your case with Simdag and the principals by settling it, did you not? I will instruct him not to answer it. As I said before, I will stipulate that the lawsuit was dismissed and will disclose no other information about that. Hold one moment. I have some housekeeping things to do. We will wrap it up, Mr. Trump. Mark this as Exhibit 6. [Whereupon second amendment to license agreement is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for identification as of this date] Mr. Trump, what I am showing you is a document that is titled second amendment to license agreement. It was produced to us by counsel in discovery. It has a letter of intent attached to it dated February 5th, 2007. Nothing is executed, really, in the purest sense. I want to know whether you know anything about this document. I knew that the related group and Simdag were trying to save the project by -- despite the bad market conditions at the time, by getting together, and I fully encouraged them to do that. Who was the related group? It was a big real estate firm. Was it a private equity firm? Were they a building developer? No, it was a builder developer with equity. They would have came in, and I think they were looking to take over the position of the folks developing the job, but the market got worse and ultimately the deal didn't happen. Is it fair to say this wasn't executed, and I understand that -- is it fair to say that any approvals that you, Donald J. Trump, as licensor, needed to provide to get this done were provided? Objection to the form of the question. I don't think so. I don't think it was ever really presented to me because it never got done. The market killed -- That's what I am trying to find out. Did this get to you or did someone else draft it? I had heard about it through people and somebody related actually told me, they asked me what I thought. I said you should try to do it, but the market ultimately killed that deal and the job. Is it fair for me to say that both the genesis for this second amendment to license agreement as well as any input didn't come from you? No, it didn't come from me. I would have encouraged them to do it, but ultimately it didn't get done. What I have left is just a document for to you take a look at. We are short on the video. Then one more document. The video is already short. [Whereupon privilege log is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 for identification as of this date] [Discussion held off the record] Mr. Trump, Exhibit 7 is a privilege log. I don't expect you to know the content of the actual log, but on the last page is a list of individuals and titles that are referred to as they relate to documents which were withheld from production based on attorney-client or other privilege or immunity. First off, if you could just look at the actual parties that are named and just confirm that the actual titles are correct; for instance, where it says Bernard Diamond as executive VP and general counsel, that is indeed what he is. You can do it in general across the whole document and just confirm it. At the time, yes. Has it changed since now? I guess it really wouldn't matter. A couple of people aren't with us. At the time of the document, these would be all correct. At the time of the signing, these would be correct. Your counsel, your in-house counsel, is it Garten, has confirmed that as to the ones who haven't been described that we can get that information, correct? Sure. Absolutely. Subject of course -- We will get you that information. REQUEST NOTED Mr. Trump, so you know, it is just so we can make an assessment. It's okay. No problem. Who is Russell Flicker? He was an executive at the Trump Organization a long time ago. He was a real estate executive. I don't think he was involved very much with this job. He was provided to us as a person who possesses information regarding negotiation and execution of the agreement and subsequent events related to the Trump Tower Tampa project. I don't remember him being involved in this job. His current address he has given us was being at Blackstone Group? I think so, yes. This is a current address for him. When he was employed by Trump Organization, what was his title? Vice president, I believe. Of -- I don't know. I can give that you information. We have just two more things to move on. I have the video set up already. We will mark this as Exhibit 8. To move it along, do you want to tell him what you are going to ask him about it? [Whereupon, a video is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 for identification as of this date] I think I am just going to have him verify the veracity of the comments he made. What do you want to ask him; if he said it? Give me 30 seconds, gentleman. If I can't get this thing to pop up-- Are we going to stipulate on the record that we couldn't make the video, that we couldn't publish during the depo Exhibit 8? That's fine. We will stipulate to its authenticity? Yes, that it is what it purports to be. [Whereupon, a letter written to Wall Street Journal is marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 for identification as of this date] Mr. Trump, what I am showing you is a letter written to the New York Times. I can confirm to you that it was published in the November 16, '07, New York Times? Okay. Or shortly thereafter. Actually it is responding to a November 16 article. Do you recall writing this letter? Yes. Did you write it personally? I think so, yes. Is everything in that letter true and correct based on what you read at the time? About the Tampa project? Yes, in respect to everything, actually. I have to read the whole letter then. Let me correct it. It was Wall Street Journal, not the New York Times. Was this produced to us? No. For the record, I will reserve my objection to any part of his testimony since this document was not produced to us in advance, but I will not stop any questions. Go ahead. At the time, this was successful. The world has changed since this letter was written. A lot of things in this letter -- things have changed. At the time, it was written, yes, with the understanding that the license agreement that we have, I viewed that as a partnership because of our developing rights, et cetera, et cetera, but, generally speaking, this letter would be correct at the time it was written, but of course, the world took a big change since this letter was written. I think my questions relating to the document are really simple, Mr. Trump. You wrote this personally; right? Yes. Nothing in this is misprinted in the sense that it is an authentic reprint of what you wrote? That is correct, yes. That's it. Okay. We have no questions. Going off the record 12:51.