- 122 -
does not cite to any, and we have found no, portion of the record
that shows that any such preference on the part of the U.S. banks
in question affected the form of the Bank transactions.
It is also significant that, during the years at issue,
Union Bank believed that its ability to protect its security
interest in and foreclose against the cash deposits pledged to
secure the loans to Radcliffe and to BOT that it had funded was
impaired by the possibility that the pledges of those deposits
constituted fraudulent conveyances under California law. Under
those circumstances, Union Bank could hardly have considered
those cash deposits a preferred form of collateral.
Based on our review of the entire record in these cases,
petitioner has failed to persuade us that the Bank transactions
took the form they did because the U.S. banks in question pre-
ferred the use of cash as collateral for the loan transactions at
issue in which they were involved.
We have found on the instant record that petitioner has not
established that the Bank transactions took the form they did
because of any nontax, business purpose of the U.S. banks in
question that petitioner alleges on brief.
89(...continued)
porate law. See sec. 157H(2), Companies Ordinance of Hong Kong.
Although petitioner does not include the deposit of Multi-Credit
that was pledged to secure the UB $800,000 Radcliffe loan in his
assertion, Union Bank's security interest in that deposit also
was probably unenforceable for the same reason, i.e., petition-
er's admission that the pledge of that deposit violated Hong Kong
corporate law. See id.
Page: Previous 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011