- 23 -
claims precludes the allowance in 1990 of petitioners' deductions
for Federal income tax purposes with respect to their M&L losses.
Mr. Premji argues that case law as to some issues raised by
Ms. Jobin in the adversary proceedings was unsettled within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. We
disagree. The law was not so uncertain as to render the
prospects of success remote or nebulous or to presume that no
actual recovery could be expected. Various other courts had
decided similar issues. See Cunningham v. Brown, 265 U.S. 1
(1924); In re United Energy Corp., 944 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1991);
In re Agricultural Research & Technology Group, Inc., 916 F.2d
528 (9th Cir. 1990); First Federal of Michigan v. Barrow, 878
F.2d 912 (6th Cir. 1989); In re Bullion Reserve of North America,
836 F.2d 1214 (9th Cir. 1988); Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90 (6th
Cir. 1966); Eby v. Ashley, 1 F.2d 971 (4th Cir. 1924); In re
Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc., 98 Bankr. 300 (Bankr.
N.D. Ohio 1989), affd. 974 F.2d 712 (6th Cir. 1992); In re
Independent Clearinghouse Co., 77 Bankr. 843 (D. Utah 1987).
Moreover, the trustee has been successful in the adversary
proceedings.
Mr. Premji's prospect of recovering some of his losses is
even stronger than that of Mr. Norby. Mr. Premji was one of 68
plaintiffs in the Amazing Enterprises lawsuit against the Bank of
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011