From: "Barry J. Cohen" <
To: Jeffrey E. <jeevacation(rgmail.com>
Subject: FW: Leon Black - Purchase of 6650
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:07:34 +0000
FYI
From: Barry J. Cohen
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 9:02 AM
To: 'Tom Mitchell' • Deyoe, David < >; Lee Rohde
Cc: Wimer, Ruth <I >; Ada Clapp <->; John Castrucci
Subject: RE: Leon Black - Purchase of G650
Understood. If "airworthy" is the typical provision, then this seems fine. I just wondered if there was a higher standard
that is sometimes used in contracts.
And you are saying that because we are requiring a 48-month inspection as a pre-condition to closing, we can live with a
more basic pre-buy inspection, right?
From: Tom Mitchell fmailto
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 8:58 AM
To: Barry J. Cohen <->; Deyoe, David < >; Lee Rohde
Cc: Wimer, Ruth < >; Ada Clapp <->; John Castrucci
Subject: RE: Leon Black - Purchase of G650
Hi Barry,
I can take a shot at these questions as others can chime in.
There are actually 4 ranking inspections offered by Gulfstream under the task of what we are calling a pre-purchase
inspection. I think we should plan to modify which level is most appropriate based on the decision to perform the
ancillary tasks like the 48 Month Inspection and bulkhead install. Reason being, is the redundancy is significant with the
48 Month inspection; for example the interior and landing gear is removed and inspected for corrosion, which is also done
on the higher level pre-purchase inspections. Therefore, depending on who is funding which inspection, we should
manage the process to be most cost effective yet meet the necessary inspection(s).
The term airworthy may sound less than stringent, however it is an FAA legal term that is universally used to state that the
aircraft must meet its type design; meaning all systems and components must operate as designed. This would include
something as small as a reading lamp over a seat. In reality, it is a fairly conservative term with respect to a buyer's
interest. An example of a discrepancy that is actually airworthy would normally be wear and tear related such a scratches
and cosmetic findings.
Regards,
Tom
From: Barry J. Cohen [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 8:36 AM
To: Deyoe, David; Lee Rohde; Tom Mitchell
EFTA01042302
Cc: Wimer, Ruth; Ada Clapp; John Castrucci
Subject: RE: Leon Black - Purchase of G650
Two more things:
• Exhibit C references a "basic" pre-purchase inspection. What are the merits of doing a basic vs. premium pre-buy
inspection?
• "Airworthy" seems like a pretty low standard. Is that sufficient?
From: Deyoe, David [mailto:
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:25 PM
To: Barry J. Cohen < >; H. Lee Rohde III
Tom Mitchell
Cc: Wimer, Ruth < >; Deyoe, David < >
Subject: Leon Black - Purchase of G650
Barry, Lee, and Tom —Attached are a clean version (the Word document) and a marked version (the pdf
version) of the letter of intent incorporating the changes Barry requested along with several other minor
(primarily stylistic) changes. Please review the revisions and call or email me with any comments or questions
you may have in the morning.
Dave
David R DeYoe
McDermott Will & Emery
227 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Office: 312-984-7659
Mobile: 847-727-4336
This message is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL communication. This message and all attachments are a private
communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this
message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it
from your system. Thank you.
Please visit for more information about our Firm.
EFTA01042303