inference is belied by the letters attached to the Blue Tree Owners’ complaint in which the Blue Tree Owners objected to the manner in which Starwood was allocating vendor payments. These letters contain no assertion that vendor payments are illegal or made pursuant to illicit agreements between Starwood and the vendors to act contrary to the Blue Tree Owners’ interests. Rather, they demonstrate that as of December 1998, if not earlier, the Blue Tree Owners were aware that Starwood was receiving vendor payments as a result of its volume purchasing power. Because the Blue Tree Owners’ complaint does not allege that the vendor payments themselves were improper, the Blue Tree Owners have failed to allege facts constituting commercial bribery. Compare Excel Handbag Co., 630 F.2d at 386-87 (<HOLDING>); United Magazine Co. v. Murdoch Magazines
holding that bribery only occurs where there is some offer of special treatment in exchange for something of value holding that there was no coverage because there was no occurrence within the meaning of the policy because defective workmanship does not constitute an accident or an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy holding that there could be no risk of spillover evidence where there was significant proof that both defendants participated in all the transactions holding that evidence did not establish commercial bribery because there was no proof of inducement holding that a  2c claim based on commercial bribery requires proof of commercial bribery