-146-
being partners with the banks would put them in a better position
to acquire that library. Other than his self-serving testimony,
petitioner points to no evidence to suggest that the parties to
the transaction either discussed or contemplated any dealings
involving the general CDR library. In fact, there is no
indication that the Ackerman group was given any sort of
preference in 1997 when CDR was being sold.102
Petitioner also testified that CDR asked for the $5 million
advisory fee in connection with the remaining film titles in the
CDR library as a “guaranty payment” to enable the Ackerman group
to work with CDR. He testified that the Ackerman group was
willing to pay that fee “because we thought we would be able to
get our hands on a much larger library, and certainly we did
pursue it at a later time.” The advisory fee agreement
indicates, however, that the advisory fee was paid specifically
as an inducement for CDR, Generale Bank, and CLIS to execute the
letter agreement and exchange and contribution agreement. None
of the various legal documents that the parties exchanged
contains any reference to a guaranty or any assurances regarding
the CDR library. One would expect some legal representations
regarding this matter if the $5 million advisory fee was in fact
paid as a guaranty for the CDR library.
102 According to petitioner, Generale Bank and CLIS were
still partners in SMP at that time.
Page: Previous 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011