- 158 -
transactions (viz., certain of the interest rates and percentage
interest rates that were in effect for certain periods and cer-
tain of the dates on which interest was payable or paid on those
loans), the record does not disclose those facts with respect to
the Merit $570,000 deposit or the Forward $570,000 deposit.114
As for the first renewal of the UB $570,000 renewed loan,
the record establishes that the interest rate on that renewal was
linked to the interest rate on the Forward $570,000 deposit in
that the former was not to be less than 1 percent more than the
annualized effective interest rate on the latter.
Turning to whether the Merit $570,000 deposit and the For-
ward $570,000 deposit that secured the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984
loan and the UB $570,000 renewed loan, respectively, were applied
to repay those loans, the Merit $570,000 deposit was not applied
to repay the UB $570,000 pre-March 1984 loan. Instead, it was
replaced by the Forward $570,000 deposit that was to serve as
security for the UB $570,000 renewed loan. Although petitioner
claims on brief that BOT repaid the UB $570,000 renewed loan, the
record does not disclose (1) the identity of the person or per-
sons who provided the funds that were used to repay it or
(2) whether or not the Forward $570,000 deposit was so applied.
Based upon our examination of the entire record in these
114 We note that petitioner failed to produce certain documents
of Forward sought by respondent in discovery.
Page: Previous 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011