NY Appeals Court Hands Trump Lifeline
An unexpected 11th hour reprieve.
NYT (“Trump Can Post Smaller Bond in Civil Fraud Case, Court Rules“):
With Donald J. Trump on the clock to secure a nearly half-billion-dollar bond in his civil fraud case, a New York appeals court appears to have handed the former president a lifeline on Monday, saying it would accept a far smaller bond of $175 million.
The ruling by a five-judge panel of appellate court judges was a crucial and unexpected victory for the former president, potentially staving off a looming financial disaster. Had the court denied his request — and had he failed to obtain the full bond — Mr. Trump risked of losing control over his bank accounts and, eventually, even some of his marquee properties.
For now, those dire outcomes might be on hold. If Mr. Trump obtains the smaller bond, it would prevent the New York attorney general’s office, which brought the case accusing him of fraudulently inflating his net worth, from collecting while Mr. Trump appeals the $454 million judgment imposed by a trial judge. The appeal could take months or longer to resolve.
Mr. Trump has 10 days to secure the bond, and two people with knowledge of his finances said he should be able to do so by then.
In a statement, Mr. Trump said he would “abide by the decision” and post either a bond from an outside company or put up the money himself. He added that the appellate court’s decision to reduce the bond “shows how ridiculous and outrageous” the $454 million judgment is.
[…]
The trial judge, Arthur F. Engoron, found Mr. Trump liable for conspiring to inflate his net worth to reap favorable loans from banks and other financial benefits. The $454 million reflected the interest payments Mr. Trump saved by misleading his lenders, as well as profits from the recent sale of two properties.
Justice Engoron did not stop there. He also imposed several restrictions on Mr. Trump and his family business. For three years, Mr. Trump cannot run any New York company, including portions of his own, nor can he obtain a loan from a New York bank. The same restrictions apply to his adult sons for two years. And he extended the appointment of an independent monitor, a watchful outsider to keep an eye on the family business.
In a surprise move, the appeals court on Monday also paused most of those new restrictions, save for the monitor.
The substantive portion of the ruling in its entirety:
It is ordered that the motion is granted to the extent of staying enforcement of those portions of the Judgment (1) ordering disgorgement to the Attorney General of $464,576,230.62, conditioned on defendants-appellants posting, within ten (10) days of the date of this order, an undertaking in the amount of $175 million dollars; (2) permanently barring defendants Weisselberg and McConney from serving in the financial control function of any New York corporation or similar business entity; (3) barring defendants Donald J. Trump, Weisselberg and McConney from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation for three years; (4) barring defendant Donald J. Trump and the corporate defendants from applying for loans from New York financial institutions for three years; and (5) barring defendants Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump from serving as an officer or director of any New York corporation in New York for two years. The aforesaid stay is conditioned on defendants-appellants perfecting the appeals for the September 2024 Term of this Court. The motion is otherwise denied, including to the extent it seeks a stay of enforcement of portions of the judgment (1) extending and enhancing the role of the Monitor and (2) directing the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance.
I have yet or to see a reported explanation for this rather sizable concession. I’ll update when I have.
UPDATE (13:46): Common Dreams‘ Julia Conley provides this:
Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, now a senior legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times, said the “pro-business” appellate court’s decision was not surprising and was “reasonable,” considering that “a bond is designed to secure eventual payment, not to financially wreck the defendant.”
“In a sense the decision reducing Trump’s bond and giving him more time is consistent with the ‘treat Trump like any other litigant’ credo,” said Litman, “but they sure let him twist in the wind until the last moment.”
An updated version of WaPo‘s report contains this:
Although the appeals court gave no reasoning for its decision, Adam Pollock, an attorney who formerly served as assistant attorney general in New York, said the decision could indicate that it might consider permanently reducing the judgment against Trump on appeal.
“It’s extraordinary because the law is clear that you have to post a bond in the full amount, and it additionally suggests that there may be concern that the underlying judgment is itself excessive,” said Pollock.
You won’t. They aren’t going to explain.
The Establishment in the end supports Trump.
Only explanation needed.
I’d guess the explanation is our two-tiered justice system that can justify executing the poor in the streets for existing while black and other non-crimes and misdemeanors, while officers of law bend over backwards to accommodate or show leniency towards criminals who are some combination of rich, well-connected, privileged, white etc etc.
Nothing new or shocking. As American as apple pie. I’d be pleasantly surprised were it much more complicated than this.
I think our political actors (including judges and prosecutors) can easily put themselves in the shoes of the Trumps of the world and see a need for leniency. Same was true in the financial crisis – the establishment players saw themselves as could-be titans of Wall Street. And so they treat the rich different from the poor. It’s both understandable and completely unjustified. Yet here we are.
Is there a history of this level of “flexibility” from the courts for other losers? (Trump is not merely a defendant, he has lost)
A lot of his money is tied up in real estate, which takes a considerable time to liquidate, and which would have permanent repercussions to do so pending the appeal, but I see no reason that the state could not place liens on Trump’s property for the full amount. That seems far more in keeping with the intent of the law — to ensure that the loser can pay judgment against them, and doesn’t move the funds out of the reach of the courts.
@Gustopher: People who have not “lost” a case would not be appealing the judgment now would they, your clarification is not a clarification, it’s political complaining.
Yes there is history of reductions when there is appeals court are inclined to think the original civil judgement is excessive and yes there is history of judgements being reduced. This is normal rule of law.
Expecting the court system to do your political work for you is a misplaced expectation.
I too would have enjoyed the headline judgment going through but this specific development is not really out of nowhere.
If he hadn’t reported that he could pay the amount, he wouldn’t have been “twisting” . It was based on reported income so if it’s “excessively punitive” then it’s his own fault for lying about his situation. He said he had the cash on hand and they called his bluff. The simple fact is he didn’t have the previous amount and he doesn’t have the current amount either – not without dipping into campaign funds or other ill-gotten gains.
He said he’ll have it posted in 10 days. Within a week, we’ll be seeing that he’s not going to be able to make it and he’ll be whining about being forced to sell property. $175m is still a large chunk of cash the man doesn’t have access; over 30 companies told him no when he tried to raise the org amount. Granted, they might take a second look as the amount was cut down to a 1/4 but no other conditions have changed. The man can’t pay his bills even with all his grifting and he’d need to sell everything he owns to pay off what he already owes. Bad risk as you ain’t seeing that $175m ever again…..
@KM: Yes 175 mln on top of the defamation bond at 91 odd mln is real money
In the end given an appeal – and court signal that the full value of the judgement is at potential risque to be reduced, 175 is not something to be wailing and gnashing teeth over – notably that is denying Trump’s attempt to castrate the independent monitor on Trump Org and the installation of outside oversight on compliance
The immediate effect on 175 is immediate drain and not small money.
If as you say he can even do that.
and if he can’t it says more than near half-billion
So let me get this straight — he’s been found guilty of inflating his purported net worth, fraudulently. The decision against him was more than he could pay… because he had (again) fraudulently inflated his purported net worth.
Seems to me the correct ruling is not to arbitrarily reduce the bond, but rather to require Trump to disclose his actual worth. I’d settle for that.