InterTAN, Inc. - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          Royal Bank that the $20 million withdrawn from ITC’s Royal Bank             
          account and deposited into petitioner’s Royal Bank account on               
          June 30, 1993, would be redeposited into ITC’s Royal Bank account           
          on July 2, 1993, the first Canadian federal and bank business day           
          after June 30, 1993, in order to satisfy ITC’s overdraft; and               
          (3) pursuant to the guarantee and assignment agreement, peti-               
          tioner guaranteed ITC’s overdraft to the extent of $16,382,100.11           
          As part of the commitment of petitioner and of ITC to redeposit             
          into ITC’s Royal Bank account on July 2, 1993, the $20 million              
          check dated June 29, 1993, and drawn on ITC’s Royal Bank account            
          and deposited into petitioner’s Royal Bank account on June 30,              
          1993, petitioner agreed to return that $20 million to ITC in                
          order to enable ITC to satisfy ITC’s overdraft.                             
               2.  A check dated June 30, 1993, drawn upon petitioner’s               
          Royal Bank account at Royal Bank and payable to ITC in the amount           
          of $20 million, was presented to Royal Bank.  Pursuant to the               
          June 30, 1993 letter, Royal Bank deposited that check into ITC’s            
          Royal Bank account.                                                         
               3.  A check dated June 29, 1993, drawn upon ITC’s Royal Bank           
          account at Royal Bank and payable to petitioner in the amount of            
          $20 million, was presented to Royal Bank.  Pursuant to the June             

               11Pursuant to the guarantee and assignment agreement, the              
          assignment and postponement were independent of petitioner’s                
          guarantee under such agreement and were to remain in full force             
          and effect even though the liability of petitioner as guarantor             
          under that agreement may have been extinct.                                 





Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011