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 < Tom Mitchell Cc: Wimer, Ruth < >; Deyoe, David < > Subject: Leon Black - Purchase of G650 >; H. Lee Rohde III 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