-115-
Goldman Sachs and I was no more dealing with The Prudential.”
Schaffel, Transcr. at 395. However, Kanter disagreed and
maintained the August 2, 1979, agreement continued to apply.
In a letter dated August 28, 1984, to Schaffel, Kanter
stated, in pertinent part:
I am bothered by your failure to respect what I
would have considered the essential intent of the
agreement you entered into vis-a-vis the
introduction of you to Prudential and the arrangement
under which you would share the benefits of that
introduction in connection with real estate
transactions from which you were able to earn
commissions, as well as the other construction
contracts won by Ben.
I appreciate that there may be some technical
difficulty with the previous agreements as to whether
they extend in the new circumstances to Travelers.
However, in my view Travelers has replaced Prudential
as a principal source of transactions because of the
very personnel to whom you were first introduced.
Accordingly, I am inclined to believe that the
arrangement should have been continued.
Kanter’s letter reveals that he believed Schaffel was obliged to
remit payments to IRA if Schaffel obtained any business from
Ballard or Lisle wherever they might be employed. Exh. 200.
Lisle also discussed with Schaffel the dispute between
Schaffel and Kanter.56 Although Lisle indicated that he did not
56 The recommended findings of fact adopted from the STJ
report relating to Schaffel’s discussions with Lisle are drawn
solely from Schaffel’s testimony on the subject. Schaffel,
Transcr. at 396. Lisle stated that he had no recollection of any
contacts from Schaffel or Kanter regarding the fee dispute
(continued...)
Page: Previous 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011