- 89 -
purported over lease rental payments that would be “owed” Jenrich
by CMACM (petitioner’s wholly owned subsidiary). Also, the
$4,056,220 Jenrich note was expressly stated to be a nonrecourse
obligation. “Payment” of the $4,056,220 note was stated to be
“secured” by the equipment and the “Lessor Rights” thereto. With
respect to the $10,000 and $1,000 Lexington notes, those notes
were unsecured notes, and Lexington appeared to possess minimal,
if any, financial resources.
Significantly, the over lease agreement (which Jenrich
signed as lessor) involves a lease term that provided CAP and
later petitioner, Okoma, and Lexington with no actual over lease
residual interests in the K-Mart and Shared equipment. As
previously indicated, this so-called over lease agreement
ambiguity escaped not only the notice of petitioner, CAP, Okoma,
and Lexington, but also that of others (including Crispin,
petitioner’s personnel, and Koehler) representing them in their
second lease strip deal transactions. Moreover, the fact that
there was no residual lease period was not corrected. This
apparent inattention and lack of due care upon the part of
Crispin, petitioner’s personnel, and Koehler confirms, among
other things, that no bona fide intent existed to have Jenrich
and Lexington pay their respective purported debt obligations.
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011