Reading around that a bit, it seems that the bond provider does not have the registration that would enable it to get a financial regulator's certificate stating how much it is good for. It is not required to have that registration or certificate, but in such a case the court has the right to ask for justification of being good for the bond. So that is what the court is now doing, and a hearing is scheduled on 22 April.Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:03 pmApparently Letitia James is really querying the bond that Trump got from the insurance company run by the second hand car dealer sup prime guy as it doesn’t look like they don’t have the money any more than Donald does
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 23810.html
The documentation of the bond was insufficient, including the laughable failure of not actually saying that the bond provider would pay out when the bond was called. That would have resulted in rejection on the spot, so those shortcomings were quickly rectified.
It's an easy snipe that Trump is up to his usual tricks, providing a cargo cult bond, just to get time that comes from exposing it as such. Clearly there is Trumpery going on, probably because he couldn't get such a bond from somewhere more reputable. So they will go through the theatre of exhibiting the collateral and the ability of the bond provider to pay up. The bond providing company is worth a lot of money to someone, and I doubt they want to become poor overnight, so my suspicion is that the collateral will prove adequate on examination. It might be, or a material proportion of it might be, near-cash rather than actual cash, and not quite as near-cash as you might ideally like, and maybe they'll be dodging around for some top-ups, maybe facilitated by the 2 weeks they've got before the hearing.