Florida Industries Investment Corporation and Subsidiaries - Page 38




                                        - 38 -                                         
          was not redeposited into the escrow account.  On January 8, 1991,            
          OIP received a distribution of $12,740.10 from the escrow fund,              
          which was all the moneys remaining in that fund as of that date.             
          In addition, on July 27, 1990, even prior to the expiration of               
          the 45-day period after July 26, 1990, Mr. Hefferan authorized a             
          $200,000 wire transfer drawn on the escrow account which was to              
          be used to pay the $170,688.17 balance due with respect to OIP's             
          acquisition of the Brentwood property after debits and credits               
          reflected in the closing statement.  The portion of that $200,000            
          wire transfer that was not used to pay that amount due, i.e.,                
          $29,311.83, was not redeposited into the escrow account.  In                 
          summary, in violation of the terms of the escrow agreement, prior            
          to the expiration of 180 days after July 26, 1990, Mr. Hefferan              
          authorized withdrawals from the escrow fund totaling $149,530.45,            
          which were paid to OIP, to OIP's affiliate CCC, or otherwise not             
          used to acquire a replacement property pursuant to the escrow                
          agreement.10                                                                 

               10Other examples of noncompliance with the terms of the                 
          escrow agreement to which Mr. Hefferan acquiesced include the                
          following:  Although the escrow agreement required OIP to iden-              
          tify within 45 days after July 26, 1990, any replacement property            
          that it wanted Interstate to acquire pursuant to the escrow                  
          agreement by notifying Interstate in writing of the identity of              
          any such property, OIP did not comply with that requirement.  In             
          addition, although the escrow agreement required Interstate, upon            
          identification by OIP of replacement property, to execute with               
          the owner of such property an assignable contract to purchase                
          such property (provided that Interstate's total potential liabil-            
          ity on default under such a contract did not exceed an amount                
          payable with respect to such property that was equal to the                  
                                                              (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011