-149- other consulting and fee participation agreements GHM and MHM had with Essex Partnership. As the total fees that MHM paid to Essex generally equaled the total fees that GHM (Connolly’s hotel management company) paid to Essex, the total fees MHM paid to the partnership roughly approximated MHM’s distributive share of partnership income as a 47.5-percent partner in Essex Partnership. However, as indicated previously, MHM was not paid directly for the substantial services its employees rendered to GHM. Rather, as a partner in Essex Partnership, MHM received 47.5 percent of the partnership’s income. Although IRA and THC, as partners, also received a combined 47.5 percent of the income of Essex, IRA and THC, in contrast to MHM, provided no similar substantial services to GHM. Eulich and MHM’s top management essentially viewed involvement in Essex Partnership as a marketing and sales device, whereby MHM eventually might obtain more management contracts for large hotels. By having MHM participate in Essex Partnership, Eulich hoped to have Kanter help MHM obtain additional hotel management contracts. Eulich was not familiar with IRA or THC and testified in pertinent part: Kanter was the person whose influence and contacts that we wanted at MHM because of his--again, his involvement as one of the founders of Hyatt International, hisPage: Previous 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011