- 115 -
Koehler testified that he agreed to $2 million of the $4 million
for CKH because of his experiences on other deals with Crispin
where fees were split 50-50.
We find Crispin’s and Koehler’s testimony on this matter to
lack credibility. Their testimony contained significant
discrepancies, inconsistencies, and lapses regarding the
purported oral agreement. For example, under the alleged fee-
splitting agreement, petitioner agreed to pay to CKH $2 million
or 80 percent of the NSI fee. Considering the large amount of
documentation used for related transactions, we find it
incredible that petitioner and CKH would not memorialize an
agreement to pay $2 million. Crispin and Koehler were
experienced businessmen whose transactions were based on written
documentation, yet they maintained that it was unnecessary for
CKH and petitioner to execute a $2 million fee-splitting
agreement because they “trusted” one another. Similarly, Crispin
claimed that CKH did not issue a bill for the $2 million payment
because it was transferred in accordance with the oral agreement.
During the trial, Crispin was asked about another
transaction between petitioner and CKS that had been documented
(the Investment Banking Services Agreement on February 1, 1997).
Crispin explained that a written agreement was needed because
Koehler and CKS had numerous creditors and petitioner’s rights to
the money had to be established or memorialized.
Page: Previous 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011