-234-
friendship conferred” upon Kanter.111 Id. at 80. A detailed
analysis of the magnitude, validity, and treatment of all loans
that Ballard, Lisle, and their grantor trusts received from IRA,
IFI, BWK, and other Kanter-related entities is lacking in the STJ
report.
5. Discussion Regarding Consulting Payments to Ballard’s
and Lisle’s Adult Children
Much like the loan discussion outlined above, the STJ
report, at 80-81, acknowledges Kanter may have considered the
consulting arrangements with Ballard’s and Lisle’s adult children
to be “favors” to Ballard and Lisle. The STJ report then
rationalizes the consulting payments by pointing out that Ballard
and Lisle managed TMT’s and Carlco’s assets at no charge to IRA
until 1990. Significantly, although recognizing the possible
relationship between the consulting payments to the Ballard and
Lisle children and Ballard’s and Lisle’s management of TMT and
Carlco, the STJ report fails to explore the circumstances
surrounding Kanter’s termination of the consulting payments in
1990 and Kanter’s nearly simultaneous decision to begin
compensating Ballard and Lisle for managing TMT and Carlco. At
the very least, these circumstances raised the question whether
111 The STJ report, at 80 note 34, also refers to FPC
Subventure Partnership as another example of a favorable
transaction between Kanter and Lisle, and it acknowledges that
the record fails to disclose whether Lisle repaid Kanter for his
90-percent interest in that partnership. However, the STJ report
does not contain any further recommended findings of fact with
respect to this transaction.
Page: Previous 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011