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.
