@DaveKingman8 is this true?
@TomPolhaus Yes. But the bond says that it is provided pursuant to CPLR 5519, which should be enough for a court to construe it as a promise that the surety will pay if Trump doesn't. The language of surety bonds is arcane and they sometimes don't say expressly that the surety will pay.
@TomPolhaus By "yes" I mean that it's true that the bond doesn't say that the surety will pay with clear language. But I don't believe the bond is a "sham" because it says that it's being provided pursuant to the statute. Any court would enforce this bond against Knight.
@DaveKingman8 Thanks. Is that §5519 (b) Stay in action defended by insurer?