Trump needs to post an appeal bond worth more than $454 million — with $87,500 daily interest — or seizing his assets on 25 March

Sharing is Caring!


Former President Donald Trump must come up with the full amount to cover the $454 million verdict in the civil fraud trial, an appeals court judge ruled Wednesday.

Associate Justice Anil Singh, however, lifted a ban on Trump’s ability to obtain loans from New York regulated financial institutions, which could allow him to access the equity in his assets to back the full bond amount.

Singh denied Trump’s request to delay his obligation to post $454 million until a full appellate panel hears his motion to stay enforcement of that judgment until his appeals of the civil fraud ruling are over.

See also  Federal Reserve lent big banks $152B in March 2023 to avert crisis; regional banks rely on discount window; California banks are most exposed.

The decision followed an emergency hearing that lasted about 20 minutes.

Once the parties file briefs by March 18, the panel will evaluate Trump’s motion and will likely return a decision on the docket by the end of March, according to the clerk’s office. No additional oral arguments are scheduled before the judges render a decision.

The 30-day clock for Trump to come up with the judgment began on February 23 so he will need to post the bond right around March 25, when jury selection begins for his criminal trial on charges relating to a scheme to cover up a hush money payment made before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

See also  Gold's surge defies norms, outshining stocks, while US debt interest escalates.

The ruling also means that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump can continue to run the family company, but they will each have to post more than $4 million or secure a bond in that amount to pursue their own appeals.

Trump’s attorneys had offered to post a $100 million bond, about one-fourth owed, to go toward the judgment, saying they can’t access the capital market to raise money because of the ban on obtaining loans. They argued that without a stay they would likely be forced to sell properties under “exigent circumstances.”

Views: 60

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.