-123-
self-serving testimony.87 Except for the testimony of Sean
Geary, CDR’s counsel in the transaction with the Ackerman group,
petitioner offered no testimony from any representative on the
CDR side of the transaction. As we explain in more detail below,
Mr. Geary’s testimony, in most respects, contradicts petitioner’s
assertions. In pertinent part, Mr. Geary testified that, to his
knowledge, the banks had no intent to produce or distribute film
products with the Ackerman group.
Petitioner claims, however, that the banks’ long-term
intentions were known only by one individual, Mr. Jouannet, who
is deceased. Petitioner claims that the banks’ “intentions went
to the grave with Rene Claude Jouannet”.88 We are unpersuaded
87 Mr. Ackerman testified to his understanding of the deal
with CDR; however, his testimony was based on what Mr. Lerner had
told him. Mr. Ackerman had no discussions with Mr. Jouannet or
any other representative of CDR, and the documents indicate that
he had no involvement in the negotiation and drafting process.
88 Petitioner sought to introduce a letter from Mr. Jouannet
to Mr. Lerner written in 1997, which discussed the transaction
with the Ackerman group. Because that letter is subject to an
evidentiary objection, we discuss that letter infra.
Petitioner also points to a Feb. 27, 1997, letter that Mr.
Jouannet sent to Danny Rosett, Senior Vice President, Financial
Operations, at New MGM regarding SMHC’s financial statements.
(This letter was purportedly sent in response to a Feb. 18, 1997,
memorandum from Mr. Rosett. Mr. Rosett’s memorandum is not a
part of the record, and we have no basis for determining its
content.) In his letter, Mr. Jouannet states:
Furthermore the description of the disposal by CLIS of
the Company as a sale is not exactly what occurred.
What exactly happened was an Exchange and Contribution
(continued...)
Page: Previous 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011