- 19 -
dated September and December 29, 1989, as evidence of Drexel’s
affirmation that the note was worthless. Respondent contends
that the notation does not establish worthlessness because there
is no conclusive evidence of its meaning. Respondent posits that
the notation might simply have meant that the market value was
“not available” because the note was not marketable. We agree.
Petitioners did not offer the testimony of a Drexel employee or
other credible evidence as to the meaning of the notation.
Consequently, we do not find the notation to be persuasive
evidence that the note was worthless.
Petitioners also contend that Drexel's insolvency during
1989 is shown by the allegations of Drexel’s insolvency made in a
complaint filed in a 1992 defendant class action by Drexel
against its employees for recovery of alleged preferential and/or
fraudulent transfers. However, that complaint was admitted into
evidence, subject to respondent’s objection to its relevance,
solely for the purpose of showing that the complaint was filed,
not for the purpose of allowing the hearsay statements made in
the complaint to be admitted for the truth of the matters
asserted in the complaint. Consequently, we do not find that it
has any bearing on the question of the worthlessness of the
note.8
8
We accordingly sustain respondent’s relevance objection.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011