- 11 - As noted, Dr. Chambers believed that through Lever, Pencot, and Archimedes he and petitioner were, in effect, equal owners of Onex Farms. Apparently, Dr. Chambers would not accept the consequences of any transaction that resulted in the diminution of his ownership interest in Onex Farms. Petitioner explained that he surrendered the distributed partnership interest because he did not want to be sued by Dr. Chambers, whom he describes as an aggressive, overbearing individual. Petitioner did not explain why he did not simply divide that interest in a manner satisfactory to Dr. Chambers and preserve their equal ownership in Onex Farms. Instead, petitioner, acting as liquidating partner of Archimedes, caused the distributed partnership interest to be distributed in its entirety to himself. When petitioner ultimately surrendered the distributed partnership interest, we would expect it to have been allocated proportionally among the remaining partners, resulting in Lever’s and Pencot’s owning 33-1/3 percent and 66-2/3 percent,7 respectively, of Onex Farms, but this expected result is reflected neither in the final partnership return of Onex Farms nor in the ownership interests in Titan. When Onex Farms was terminated and Titan created for “the continuation of the 7 Arguments in petitioners’ memorandum are based upon the premise that after petitioner surrendered the distributed partnership interest, Lever owned a one-third partnership interest in Onex Farms and Pencot owned a two-thirds interest. There is no support for this premise in the record.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011