- 124 -
a loan secured by a cash deposit.90 He did not testify, and
90 Petitioner's claim on brief based on Mr. Catterton's tes-
timony is rejected by the record herein. By way of illustration,
during the period from May 1981 until at least April 1985, the
interest rate terms for certain loans that Union Bank had out-
standing to NMSC and that were secured by a second deed of trust
on NMSC's buildings were the same as the interest rate terms for
certain loans that that bank had outstanding to NMSC, Radcliffe,
and BOT, respectively (viz., the UB $800,000 NMSC loan, the UB
$325,000 loan, and the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 loan (beginning
in July 1983)) and that were secured by cash deposits of the
foreign corporations pledging collateral. For instance, from May
1981 until September 1982, a loan by Union Bank to NMSC secured
by a second deed of trust on NMSC's buildings and a loan by that
bank to NMSC secured by a cash deposit bore interest at Union
Bank's prime rate plus .75 percent. In addition, from July 1984
until April 1985, Union Bank's terms with respect to the interest
on a loan to NMSC that was secured by a second deed of trust on
NMSC's buildings and certain loans to NMSC and Radcliffe, respec-
tively, that were secured by cash deposits (viz., the UB $800,000
NMSC loan and the UB $325,000 loan) were the same (viz., Union
Bank's LIBOR plus 1.5 percent or its prime rate plus 1 percent).
In fact, in light of the interest rate terms for a Union Bank
loan to BOT that was secured by a cash deposit (viz., the UB
$570,000 renewed loan first renewal), it is possible that during
a portion of the time that loan was outstanding (viz., from July
1984 until April 1985) it bore a higher interest rate than Union
Bank's loan to NMSC that was secured by a second deed of trust on
NMSC's buildings. This is because the loan that was secured by
the cash deposit was to bear interest at a rate that was equal to
Union Bank's LIBOR plus 1.5 percent or its prime rate plus 1
percent, but that was not less than 1 percent more than the
annualized effective interest rate on the deposit securing that
loan, while the loan secured by NMSC's buildings bore interest at
Union Bank's LIBOR plus 1.5 percent or its prime rate plus 1
percent.
We note that after S.C. Gaw's death in October 1983 petition-
er guaranteed the Union Bank loan to NMSC that was secured by the
second deed of trust on NMSC's buildings, but did not guarantee
any other loan by Union Bank to NMSC, Radcliffe, or BOT. Peti-
tioner does not suggest, and the record does not indicate, that
the presence or absence of petitioner's guarantee would have
affected the interest rate on any of those loans. We also note
that S.C. Gaw guaranteed Union Bank's loans to NMSC and BOT,
respectively, and that that guarantee had no effect on the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011