Trump must post $454M bond in New York appeal
A New York appellate judge rejected an emergency request Wednesday from Donald Trump to post a $100 million bond while appealing what he called an “exorbitant and punitive” $454 million fraud judgment against him.
State Attorney General Letitia James opposed Trump's request and asked for the former president to have to post the entire judgment, to ensure the state would be paid if he loses his appeal.
Judge Anil Singh of the state court's Appellate Division, First Department, ruled Trump has to post a bond for the entire judgment and that he has a three-year prohibition against doing business in New York. The business prohibition also bars him from getting loans from financial institutions chartered or registered in the state.
Singh's temporary ruling now heads to a five-judge appellate panel to determine how much Trump must post to avoid paying the full judgment while he appeals.
Singh set a deadline of March 11 for the attorney general's office to file a written argument against Trump's request for a lower bond. Trump will then have until March 18 to respond.
The clock is ticking the appeals panel. The $454 million judgment against Trump comes due 30 days after the judgment was finalized on Feb. 23.
Trump is appealing state Judge Arthur Engoron's ruling that ordered the former president and his namesake company to pay the government for illgotten gains from overstating the value of his real-estate. The verdict also barred Trump from doing business in New York for three years, which includes borrowing from New Yorkbased banks.
While Trump appeals the judgment, he asked to postpone paying the full amount because he would have trouble raising the cash.
“The exorbitant and punitive amount of the Judgment coupled with an unlawful and unconstitutional blanket prohibition on lending transactions would make it impossible to secure and post a complete bond,” Trump's lawyers Clifford Robert and Alina Habba wrote.
But James opposed the request by arguing Trump is unlikely to prevail in his appeal. She argued a full bond is required precisely because of his insufficient cash and need to raise further capital.
“There is no merit to defendants' contention that a full bond or deposit is unnecessary because they are willing to post a partial undertaking of less than a quarter of the judgment amount,” James wrote. “Defendants all but concede that Mr. Trump has insufficient liquid assets to satisfy the judgment; defendants would need ‘to raise capital' to do so.”
James argued that Engoron's prohibition against future loans is warranted because the heart of the case dealt with Trump's fraudulent and misleading statements to financial institutions.
“These are precisely the circumstances for which a full bond or deposit is necessary, where defendants' approach would leave OAG with substantial shortfalls once this Court affirms the judgment,” James wrote.
Because Trump asked for an expedited decision, Judge Singh held a hearing Wednesday based on written arguments from lawyer for Trump and the attorney general's office.
Trump's request will now be passed to a five-judge appellate panel to determine what level to set the appeal bond, according to Mark Zauderer, a senior partner at Dorf Nelson & Zauderer who has practiced in the court for decades.
The panel will review the written arguments from Trump and James and typically reach a decision within several weeks, Zauderer said.
The appellate panel could set a bond anywhere from zero to the full judgment.