- 29 -
with respect to petitioners’ contributions. He also asserted
that the testimony of those affiants is “unknown”, and he
questioned whether they were involved in any negotiations or
discussions with NMG, WCP, or Arbeit regarding WCP’s proposed
acquisition of NMG stock and warrants. Respondent also
questioned the affiants’ competency “to opine upon, or reach any
conclusion as to, what constitutes a binding agreement or whether
their respective organizations had indeed entered binding
agreements in connection with the transactions at issue.” We do
not share respondent’s reservations with respect to the
affidavits, and we find those affidavits credible.
First, in response to respondent’s allegations, petitioners
submitted additional affidavits from each of the affiants. Each
of those affidavits states: (1) The affiants were personally
involved with respect to petitioners’ contributions; (2) before
the donees’ execution of the warrant purchase and sale agreement,
there were no agreements amongst the donees, Arbeit, Mr.
Rauenhorst, or any other person or entity regarding the sale of
the warrants; and (3) through November 12, 1993, there were no
negotiations or communications between the donees and NMG or
parties representing NMG, except for the letters from NMG’s legal
counsel requesting that the donees sign an Additional Party
Signature Page.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011