- 8 -
Investerings Pship. Id. As the discussion which follows
reveals, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there are any
significant differences in the two cases.
A. Guaranteed or Specified Return
Petitioner maintains that there was no agreement among the
partners that ABN would be paid a specified return on the funds
it contributed to the partnerships. Petitioner further contends
that there is no evidence in the record that ABN was in fact paid
a specified return on its funds, stating:
The payment of a ‘specified return’ would have required
detailed calculations of interest rates, time periods,
and principal amounts. There is nothing in the Saba
record to suggest that any such calculations were ever
made. The record in Saba contains thousands of pages
of documents, but there is not one scrap of paper which
calculates the payments which would be necessary to
provide a specified return. The witnesses testified no
such calculations were ever made.
It is disingenuous for petitioner to suggest that a
determination that Brunswick paid fees to ABN would have required
a detailed calculation of interest rates, time periods, and
principal amounts. Respondent asserts, and we agree, that
Brunswick, ABN, and Merrill Lynch (acting as a middleman)
understood that Brunswick would pay ABN fees to participate in
the partnerships. Respondent points to internal documents
maintained by Brunswick and ABN that refer to anticipated “fees”,
Brunswick’s payment of “consulting fees” to ABN, and Merrill
Lynch’s valuation of Saba’s LIBOR notes as evidence that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011