- 4 -
scores of persons who had executed partnership agreements with
Hardin for equipment leasing partnerships operating under the
name Oceanic Leasing followed by a Roman numeral. Willner was
not one of the persons shown on the Schedules K-1 attached to the
Form 1065 filed by Hardin.
In 1990, a class action suit was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco by an
investor in the Hardin entities. The Superior Court appointed a
receiver to take over the operations of Oceanic Leasing and
related Hardin entities. In findings of fact filed April 15,
1991, in the Superior Court Action, the Superior Court found,
among other things:
2. The receiver and her accountants (employed
pursuant to the Court's Order Authorizing Receiver to
Employ Accountants, entered August 15, 1990), completed
an extensive review of the available books and records
of Oceanic and Tax Company, and have identified a total
of about 500 different entity names used in connection
with defendants' operations, including about 100
purported Oceanic Leasing entities and about 400
purported Aerocapital entities.
3. Although it appears from the business records
that Oceanic Leasing and Aerocapital entities would
typically be set up as purported general partnerships,
it appears that (1) virtually all of the capital
contributed to the entities may have been pooled in
joint bank accounts; (2) no separate books of accounts
appear to have been kept for the different entities;
(3) in most cases the entities may not have acquired
specific identifiable assets; and (4) income and
expenses may have been consolidated without regard to
the entity's name or its nominal activity. [Price v.
Hardin, No. 921799.]
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011