-291-
IRA reveals that both Schaffel and Kanter understood that their
fee-sharing agreement was inextricably tied to Ballard and Lisle.
Schaffel hoped to restrict the fee-sharing agreement to
Prudential transactions only,122 whereas Kanter maintained the
agreement required Schaffel to share any fees arising from his
business dealings with Ballard and Lisle wherever they might be
employed.
4. Schnitzer/PMS
In February 1989, Kanter wrote to Ross and inquired whether
PMS would be interested in making an early, discounted final
payment under the IRA/PMS installment agreement. Kanter
mentioned in his letter that IRA had assigned its contract rights
under the IRA/PMS installment agreement and that any payment
should be remitted to PSAC, which served as the depository for
the assignee. There is no evidence in the record that IRA ever
assigned its rights under the IRA/PMS installment agreement to
another party. Kanter used the term “assignment” because he knew
the payments belonged to himself, Ballard, and Lisle, and he had
122 Schaffel explained that he stopped making payments to
Kanter/IRA in 1983 because “I said, ‘The deal is off. Bob
[Lisle] has moved and I am not going to, you know--the
relationship is over.’” Schaffel, Transcr. at 402. Schaffel
also testified: “I didn’t believe that [Kanter] was entitled to
that money because we had left the Investment Research agreement
because Bob [Lisle] had moved on to Travelers and Claude
[Ballard] had moved on to Goldman Sachs and I was no more dealing
with The Prudential.” Schaffel, Transcr. at 395.
Page: Previous 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011