- 11 -
property of HTC still had some value. This belief, in turn, is
evidence that the dissolution of HTC in 1990 was not a "closed
and completed" transaction indicating the worthlessness of the
loans HTC held.
Petitioners also contend that their unsuccessful attempts to
recover the debts through litigation are evidence of the
worthlessness of the debts. HTC submitted a formal claim under
the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 for an equitable adjustment in
the Contract price in November 1989. The Army denied the claim
in March 1990. That same month, HTC appealed the Army's denial
of its claim to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.
The Board rendered a decision in 1992 against petitioners.
Petitioners then caused that decision to be appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and
pursued that appeal vigorously and aggressively as evidenced by
the extensive briefs filed in that litigation. And after a
divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's
decision in an unpublished opinion, HTC Indus., Inc. v. Aspin,
Secretary of Defense, 22 F.3d 1103 (Fed. Cir. 1994), petitioners
caused HTC to file a petition for rehearing including a
suggestion for a rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing
was denied, and the suggestion for rehearing en banc was
apparently not favorably acted upon. Finally, the Couchs caused
HTC to seek further review in the Supreme Court, which denied the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011