Donald Trump’s assertion that he cannot locate an insurance provider to guarantee his $464 million bond in the civil fraud case was rejected by the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who told a state appeals court to disregard it. The state attorneys argued that the defendants had no need to wait for their reply to bring up their claims and defenses about the challenges in securing a bond because they started working toward one even before their stay request was filed and, in fact, before judgment was rendered. After receiving negative responses from thirty insurance firms, Trump’s attorneys claimed on Monday that obtaining a bond was all but impossible for him.
They informed the appeals court that the insurers would not accept real estate as security and that they only accepted cash or shares valued roughly $500 million. Unless the appeals court grants Trump’s request to postpone paying the bond until after the appeal is considered, he has until Monday to post the bond. Trump should attempt to persuade insurance firms to jointly underwrite the bond or provide a more thorough explanation for any discrepancies in their talks, according to the attorney general’s office.
As to the attorney general’s office, “Defendants furnish no documentary proof that indicates precisely what real property they proposed to sureties, what conditions were attached to that property, or why the sureties declined to accept the assets.” According to what the Court might deduce, sureties might have declined to take defendants’ particular holdings as collateral since employing Mr. Trump’s real estate often requires “a property appraisal.” and his assets are not nearly as valuable as the defendants assert,” the AG continued. The chief attorney at the Trump Organization, Alan Garten, and Trump’s insurance broker, Gary Giulietti, both made sworn statements that the attorney general’s office called untrustworthy.
They contend that Trump ought to have revealed that Giulietti, a longtime friend of Trump’s, testified in the civil fraud trial but the judge did not find him credible. They contended that because Garten had an interest in the result, he is likewise untrustworthy. They also suggested that properties be turned over to the judge. “Defendants should have at least agreed to have their real estate interests held by the Supreme Court to satisfy the judgment if they were truly unable to provide an undertaking, or they should have otherwise pledged security in real estate holdings with sufficient value to secure payment of the entire judgment.”
