- 142 -
any such other deposits, we note that respondent did not repre-
sent to the Court in her motion to compel production of documents
or in the evidentiary hearing on that motion that she sought
documents concerning the BB Loan No. 1 transaction that peti-
tioner failed to produce or that the documents she sought that
petitioner failed to produce related to that loan.106
The only foreign corporation pledging collateral involved in
the BB Loan No. 1 transaction that is disclosed by the record in
these cases is Intercontinental. The deposit pledged by Inter-
continental was in the amount of $450,000. BB Loan No. 1 was
funded by Bangkok Bank LA branch in the amount of $1,000,000.
Consequently, under respondent's theory in these cases, Intercon-
tinental could not have been the "ultimate source" of the full
amount of that loan, although it could have been the "ultimate
source" of $450,000 of that loan. On the record before us, we
limit our analysis of the BB Loan No. 1 transaction to $450,000
of BB Loan No. 1 throughout the period during which the Intercon-
tinental $450,000 deposit served, in form, as security as part of
that loan transaction.
The record establishes that, in form, Bangkok Bank Ltd.
through its Los Angeles branch funded a $1,000,000 loan to
Radcliffe and through its Hong Kong branch provided a $1,000,000
106 We also note that during the trial of these cases petitioner
provided respondent with copies of certain records of the Los
Angeles or the Hong Kong branch of Bangkok Bank Ltd. that respon-
dent did not seek to introduce into evidence.
Page: Previous 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011