- 13 -
whether Arthur and Susan Willner were "persons holding an
interest in such entity."
The evidence supports a finding that Willner was a person
holding an interest in the entity that is the subject of this
proceeding. He claimed tax benefits on the assumption that a
return was filed for the partnerships in which he invested,
bearing the single EIN 94-2870681; he received cash payments from
a single bank account with respect to the partnerships in which
he invested; he acquiesced in Hardin's total control of all
entity business with knowledge that Hardin was handling as a unit
what were identified as multiple partnerships; he regarded
himself as the beneficiary of a class action that treated the
superficially separate partnerships as a single entity; and he
did not raise his claim in this action until he saw that the
action would neither lead to a determination in favor of the
partnership nor a settlement that would benefit him. The nexus
between his claims of partnership losses and credit and the
entity that is the subject of this proceeding exists.
By contrast, there is no evidence that separate partnerships
known as Oceanic Leasing VI or Oceanic Leasing XXXV ever engaged
in any activity other than the fraudulent leasing transactions
engaged in by Hardin in the name of Oceanic Leasing. Willner did
not comply with the terms of the agreements on which he relies.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011