CBS has an article (www.cbsnews.com/...) noting that NY AG James has taken exceptions to the Trump bond filing. She has asserted that the surety does not appear to be qualified to provide this type of a bond in NY. Other persons who claim experience with these types of bonds, including a former Assistant AG, are noting other apparent failures to comply with NY law, such as capping the amount of the surety’s capital that can be at risk at 10%.
Notably, the surety, Knight Specialty, admits that Trump did not turn over the cash collateral that backs the bond. The CBS article states that Knight Specialty maintains that the collateral is being held in an account “pledged” to Knight Specialty. I am curious about that choice of wording. I am not an expert on these types of bonds. However, in other contexts, I would have thought that at a minimum, the collateral would be in an escrow account, segregated from other funds. If an escrow account were being used, wouldn’t the Knight Specialty have said so?
Trump and/or the surety now have ten days to demonstrate that the bond is sound, i.e., that in the event the State prevails on appeal, the surety will be able to pay. Newsweek has an article delving a bit more into that matter. www.newsweek.com/…
I realize some here strongly dislike short diaries but there is not yet much to report on this one.
Update: CNN now has a story on this topic. www.cnn.com/… That article indicates that pairing Knight Specialty with a surety authorized to issue these types of bonds in NY is an option. Here’s hoping the all the NY authorized sureties who said no to Trump earlier will say no again.
Further update: The Hill has an article stating that the NY AG’s office filing keeps Knight Specialty on the hook until a new bond is qualified in the event that the Knight Surety bond is found to be deficient. www.msn.com/...