- 55 -
constitute fraudulent conveyances under California law, in which
event Union Bank believed that it might be deprived of an en-
forceable security interest in those deposits. In order to
address that concern, Union Bank sought from petitioner, inter
alia, financial information relating to the foreign corporations
that pledged cash collateral for those loans and statements that
those corporations owned Radcliffe and/or BOT. Union Bank did
not receive the information it requested from petitioner.
Consequently, it requested its affiliate Standard Chartered Bank
HK to guarantee its loans to Radcliffe and to BOT that are at
issue herein. That guarantee was to be secured by the cash
deposits that had been pledged as security for those loans.
Despite Union Bank's concerns about possible fraudulent convey-
ances under California law and although Standard Chartered Bank
HK did not provide the guarantee requested by Union Bank, Union
Bank renewed on one or more occasions the loans it had funded to
Radcliffe and to BOT as they became due during the years at
issue.
In February 1986, petitioner requested Union Bank to consid-
er making a new loan to Radcliffe and/or BOT in the amount of
$8,400,000, an amount that was approximately equal to the then
outstanding balances of the loans at issue that had been funded
by Bangkok Bank LA branch and by Union Bank to Radcliffe and BOT.
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011