New York, NY – Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers are facing difficulties in securing a bond to pause a judge’s ruling in a New York civil fraud case. They have filed a request with an appeals court to stay the judgment while Trump challenges it. The judgment, totaling $464 million with accrued interest, was deemed “grossly disproportional” by Trump’s legal team. They argue that the bond requirement, which would approach $1 billion, is unprecedented and unlikely to be fulfilled by any bonding company.
According to the lawyers representing Trump, very few bonding companies would consider such a large bond. The lawyers, Alina Habba, Clifford Robert, Christopher Kise, and John Sauer, stated in a filing that the bond requirement is “enormous” and not in line with the offenses Trump and the other defendants were found liable for. The defendants were accused of engaging in a decade-long scheme to defraud banks and insurers through overvaluations of properties and Trump’s net worth.
The Trump Organization’s general counsel, Alan Garten, explained that surety companies are unwilling to accept real estate as collateral. Despite approaching more than 30 surety companies, the defendants were unable to find ones that had the financial strength and were willing to accept the risk associated with such a large bond. In a separate case, Trump was able to post a bond of over $90 million through a subsidiary of the insurance company Chubb to appeal another legal defeat.
An affidavit from Gary Giuletti, president of private insurance firm Lockton Companies, was included in the filing. Giuletti testified as an expert witness in Trump’s defense during the fraud trial, but Judge Arthur Engoron criticized his testimony and the defense team’s decision to use him as a witness. According to Giuletti, a bond of this size is rarely, if ever, seen, making it nearly impossible for the defendants to secure one.
Attorney General Letitia James’ office has stated that Trump has until March 25 to put up a bond for the entire judgment, or the state could seize property from him. James’ office declined to comment on the matter.