Support truly
independent journalism
A federal judge has officially dismissed Rudy Giuliani’s bankruptcy case after the cash-strapped former New York City mayor and his creditors were deadlocked over his finances and money he owed for administrative expenses.
Judge Sean Lane initially tossed out the case last month, citing Giuliani’s lack of financial transparency and his apparent attempts to evade court orders.
But Giuliani’s lawyers and and his bankruptcy creditors were left trying to figure out how the former mayor would pay tens of thousands of dollars he owes for administrative fees, whether he can actually pay any of it, and how much money he has on hand — questions that have also been at the center of the bankruptcy case.
Giuliani’s agreement to pay off his administrative costs means that he will dodge further scrutiny over his financial disclosures — including having to testify under oath, which Judge Lane had suggested was a possibility.
The end of the bankruptcy proceedings means his creditors can continue to push the courts for what they say they are owed.
The parties had all agreed last month that dismissing the bankruptcy proceedings would be the best way forward for debtors to try to collect, including $148 million that a jury awarded a pair of election workers who were subject to harassment and threats after Giuliani defamed them with bogus claims about their actions during the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
Election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss can now rely on the courts to seek what they’re owed, including potentially seizing his assets.
Giuliani’s attorneys told the court last month that dismissing the case would give him the “best chance” of appealing that defamation verdict.
The former mayor must hand over $100,000 to his lawyers “to be held in escrow for the purpose of paying allowed professional fees and expenses,” according to an order signed by Judge Lane on Friday and approved by the parties earlier this week.
The remaining fees shall be paid from the proceeds of the sale of either Giuliani’s New York City apartment or Florida condo, “whichever sale occurs first.”
Giuliani’s New York condo, which has been up for sale on and off throughout the year, is valued at around $5.6 million, while his Florida condo is valued at about $3.5 million. The former mayor’s lawyer previously argued against their client selling both places, claiming that it would result in Giuliani “join[ing] the ranks of the homeless.”
Global Data Risk, the firm whose expenses Giuliani has been ordered to pay, can also force a sale in six months if he doesn’t take action.
Giuliani filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 2023 in the wake of a nearly $150 million defamation judgment for his election lies.
A bizarre monthslong behind-the-scenes courtroom drama that followed has laid bare his financial state as he battles criminal indictments across the country.
The defamation verdict is among a growing list of legal obligations for Giuliani, including criminal charges in Georgia and in Arizona for his efforts to reverse Donald Trump’s election loss in those states. He also is an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal criminal case surrounding Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Giuliani also is being sued by voting technology companies Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic for defamation. A former Dominion executive has separately sued Giuliani.
Creditors separately asked the judge to impose sanctions against Giuliani after failing to comply with document requests. Last month, the creditors’ committee’s lawyers accused him of treating “the bankruptcy process as a joke, hiding behind the facade of an elderly, doddering man.”
The order came days after a scheduled hearing involving a case from a former employee-turned-sexual assault accuser Noelle Dunphy.
Dunphy had asked for the New York Supreme Court to unfreeze the case and to “place this matter back on the active calendar” at the “earliest convenient date” once the bankruptcy case came to an end.
Giuliani’s lawyers asked to push back the court date, arguing that “lifting the bankruptcy stay is premature and improper” because Lane had called into question whether the dismissal would stick.
