- 93 -
as a sanction for his failure to produce records of Double Wealth
concerning that loan. The Court permitted petitioner to testify
about the BB Loan No. 3 transaction, indicating that it would
give that testimony whatever weight it considered appropriate.
On brief, respondent renews her request that we exclude
petitioner's testimony concerning the BB Loan No. 3 transaction.
She also asks the Court to exclude petitioner's testimony relat-
ing to certain records of Horbury and of Forward that the Court
ordered petitioner to produce. Petitioner counters that the
sanctions sought by respondent are inappropriate because peti-
tioner did not have an opportunity to comply with the Court's
order granting respondent's motion to compel, which was made on
the same day on which the trial of these cases concluded.
Based on our consideration of all of the circumstances
surrounding respondent's motion to compel and her request at
trial and on brief for sanctions, including the simultaneity of
the Court's granting that motion and the trial of these cases, we
will not impose sanctions on petitioner.
II. General Principles Applicable to These Cases
Before turning to the specific questions that we must re-
solve in order to decide whether to sustain respondent's deter-
minations against Radcliffe and BOT, and therefore whether to
sustain respondent's determinations of petitioner's transferee
liability, we set forth the basic legal framework within which we
must consider those questions.
Page: Previous 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011