- 101 -
shown in the reports had the same serial numbers as those that were
on the 1993 bill of sale. Ms. Grossman was unaware that Comdisco
had substituted replacement equipment for the equipment purchased
by the end user.
When Comdisco exercised its early termination option, the 1996
bills of sale conveyed back to Comdisco the identical computers
that Andantech had acquired pursuant to the 1993 bill of sale. The
serial numbers on the 1996 bills of sale were identical to those on
the 1993 bill of sale. Thus, the 1996 bills of sale inaccurately
reflect that Comdisco never replaced any of the computers (i.e.,
did not substitute a different computer for any of the original
equipment). Andantech never transferred title to the end user.
Comdisco treated the equipment as its own and transferred ownership
of the equipment to the end user.
We are also mindful that, as Dr. Schallheim points out, under
the schedule of rents, Andantech did not sell all of the rents to
NationsBank. Comdisco should have paid $2,711,993 of rent to
Andantech. Petitioners’ expert, Mr. Fleming, included those rents
in his analysis of the profit potential. Petitioners argue that
those rents should be included in evaluating the profit potential,
but they fail to explain why Andantech never sought to collect the
rents.
The low degree of adherence to the entities’ contractual
terms, particularly those relating to the actual ownership and the
right to transfer ownership to a third party, indicates a lack of
Page: Previous 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011