Trump calls NY attorney general’s bond suggestions ‘impractical and unjust’

Trump calls NY attorney general’s bond suggestions ‘impractical and unjust’ - Business and Finance - News

Trump’s Legal Team Disputes New York Attorney General’s Suggestions for Paying Bond

In a recent court filing, former President Donald Trump’s legal team challenged several proposals made by the New York Attorney General’s office regarding how Trump could fulfill his obligation to pay a judgment of over $2 billion.

The Proposed Solutions: Unfeasible for Trump

One suggestion put forward by the New York Attorney General’s office was that several underwriters could secure bonds totaling the amount of the judgment, requiring Trump to provide only half a billion dollars in cash or stock as collateral. However, Trump’s lawyers countered this proposal by stating that it would still necessitate Trump to post an astronomical sum of money that he does not possess.

Time Running Out: Four Days Left to Comply or Seek Relief

Trump now has a limited time frame of four days to meet the requirements of the judgment or appeal the decision to a higher court. If he fails to do so, New York Attorney General Letitia James has stated her intention to seize assets in an attempt to collect the judgment.

Trump’s Legal Team Argues against AG’s Interference

In the filing, Trump’s legal team asserted that they should not be subject to challenge by the New York Attorney General’s office regarding their claims. The attorney general’s office had suggested that Trump could secure bonds using real estate as collateral, citing the practice of large companies doing so in similar situations. However, Trump’s lawyers rejected this proposal, pointing out that there was no precedent for such a requirement in New York case law and that it would pose significant risks and potential irreparable injury.

Irreparable Harm: Forced Sale of Properties

The legal team further argued that being compelled to sell properties at a fire sale would result in irreparable injury because they might not be able to recover the assets if they were ultimately successful in their appeal. They maintained that the demands for an undertaking in the full amount of the judgment to appeal were unreasonable, unjust, and potentially unconstitutional under both federal and New York state constitutions.

Implications for Trump’s Legal Battle

The ongoing legal performance between Trump and the New York Attorney General’s office continues to unfold, with this recent exchange marking a significant point in the proceedings. The consequences of this situation could potentially have far-reaching implications for Trump’s future legal actions and financial standing.