-131-
contributing a viable “starter” film library to SMHC or to
partner in a film distribution business with respect to those
assets or the CDR library, generally. Instead, the selection
process that Mr. Peters described strongly suggests that CLIS
contributed the film assets to SMHC for a far different
purpose.92
f. Conclusion
In light of these various considerations, we are not
persuaded that the banks had any intention of partnering with
Messrs. Lerner and Ackerman in a film distribution business. To
the contrary, it is clear that the Credit Lyonnais group desired
to end its failed relationship with its distressed filmed
entertainment assets and companies. CDR’s role as Generale
Bank’s and CLIS’s representative in the transaction with the
Ackerman group reflects the banks’ interest in liquidating their
receivables and SMHC stock.
2. Ackerman Group’s Purposes
Petitioner claims that he and Mr. Ackerman wanted to join
with the banks in a film distribution business and understood
92 Petitioner contends that “Mr. Peters’ testimony and
demeanor suggested an effort to hurt Petitioners” and questions
the accuracy and good faith of that testimony. Apart from these
general assertions, petitioner provides no basis for concluding
that Mr. Peters fabricated his testimony. Mr. Peters was subject
to petitioner’s cross-examination; nothing in his testimony
suggested any bad faith or fabrication. Despite petitioner’s
protestations, we find Mr. Peters’s testimony credible, thorough,
and very persuasive on the relevant points.
Page: Previous 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011