Lititia James Urges Court to Disregard Trump’s Assertion of $464M Bond as ‘Practically Impossible’.
The recent legal proceedings involving former President Trump and the New York Attorney General’s Office have brought to light a contentious dispute regarding the feasibility of securing a bond in Trump’s civil case.
“The Court should not consider defendants’ new allegations and arguments — which contend that a full bond or deposit is a ‘practical impossibility’ because they are procedurally improper,” the document states.
In a document filed by Senior Assistant Solicitor General Dennis Fan, the attorney general urged the court to disregard Trump’s request for a stay on his $464 million civil fraud judgment. The document characterizes Trump’s demand as “extraordinary” and “improper,” emphasizing that the court should not consider the defendants’ new allegations and arguments regarding the difficulty of obtaining a bond because they are procedurally improper.
The crux of Trump’s argument lies in his claim that ongoing efforts to secure a bond have proven futile, citing the challenge of approaching numerous surety companies through multiple brokers. According to Trump’s filing, the requirement for a bond of such magnitude, effectively necessitating cash reserves approaching $1 billion, is unprecedented for a private company. This assertion underscores the significant financial burden that Trump faces in meeting the bond requirement set by the court.
However, the Attorney General’s Office rebuts this claim, asserting that there is nothing unusual about even billion-dollar judgments being fully bonded on appeal. By challenging the notion that securing a bond is beyond reach, the Attorney General’s Office aims to dismantle Trump’s argument that obtaining a full bond is a practical impossibility. Instead, they argue that Trump should explore alternative avenues for securing the entire value, such as engaging multiple sureties or offering his real estate holdings as collateral.
The Attorney General’s Office further contends that Trump has only demonstrated an inability to secure a single bond for the entirety of the cash amount. They argue that appealing parties have the option to bond large judgments by dividing the bond amount among multiple sureties, thereby mitigating the risk for individual sureties. By suggesting this approach, the Attorney General’s Office aims to dismantle Trump’s assertion that obtaining a full bond is unattainable.
The filing from the Attorney General’s Office also addresses Trump’s concerns about the potential consequences of selling assets to generate cash for collateral. While Trump argues against a “fire sale” scenario, the Attorney General’s Office highlights the alternative risk of executing on Trump’s illiquid assets. By shifting the focus to the potential risks associated with Trump’s assets, the Attorney General’s Office aims to underscore the urgency of complying with the court’s bond requirement.
In light of these arguments, Trump has until Monday to secure the bonds required by the court, failing which he faces the possibility of the attorney general beginning to seize assets. The looming deadline adds pressure to the ongoing legal battle, underscoring the significance of the dispute over the feasibility of securing a bond in Trump’s civil case.
In summary, the clash between Trump and the New York Attorney General’s Office over the issue of securing a bond in his civil case highlights the complexities and stakes involved in high-profile legal proceedings. As both sides present their arguments before the court, the outcome will not only impact the trajectory of Trump’s legal battles but also set a precedent for future cases involving significant financial judgments.
