-214-
Petitioner points to the negotiations between CDR and the
Ackerman group, in which CDR sought to retain whatever value
might be realized in the Carolco securities. Petitioner contends
that these negotiations indicate that the Carolco securities had
some value. It is unclear from the record, however, precisely
what CDR’s intentions were with respect to the Carolco
securities. Clearly, at the time these negotiations were
ongoing, it was highly unlikely that the banks (through SMHC)
would recover anything on the Carolco securities. Any recovery
at that time would have been highly speculative and contingent on
events that were not foreseeable. Even if we were to assume that
CDR’s interest indicates some value in the Carolco securities, we
have no clear indication of what that value might be.
Finally, any value that might have been realized on the
Carolco securities would not go to the Ackerman group. Indeed,
Mr. Lerner testified that the Ackerman group evaluated the
Carolco securities, but they were concerned only with the
potential negative aspects of those securities; i.e.,
liabilities. He testified that the Ackerman group had very
little control over the Carolco securities since Carolco was “in
bankruptcy proceedings, number one, and, number two, the ultimate
value would accrue to the benefit of Credit Lyonnais, which was
fine with us.” Mr. Lerner testified that because of the various
ways in which CDR laced any realizable value in the Carolco
Page: Previous 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011