- 26 -
of it". He explained that as to review of the offering
memorandum, he "really left it to Bachmann."
Reimann testified that his primary consideration for
investing in Scarborough was profit, and that Bachmann never told
him that the tax credits would exceed the amount of his
investment. He could not or would not recall or state at trial
the amount of the credits he and his former wife claimed on their
1981 return or whether they paid any taxes that year, although
this information was on the face of the return he had come from
California to testify about. On their tax return for 1981, the
Reimanns claimed a tax refund in the amount of $21,570. Reimann
claims he never asked anyone at Bachmann, Schwartz whether the
firm was receiving a commission on the Plastics Recycling
investment. He testified that he never made a determination that
any of the recyclers would be placed with end-users prior to the
time he made his investment but that he knew only that they were
"planned to be placed." According to Reimann, "These things I
left to Bachmann, Schwartz and Abramson."
Marvin and Philip Yarnell likewise claim that they relied on
the now-deceased Bachmann in deciding to invest in Plymouth.
Philip Yarnell says he did not know whether Bachmann had any
expertise in engineering or plastics. Marvin Yarnell knew
Bachmann was not a specialist in plastics recycling, but he
asserted confidence that Bachmann would have investigated the
matter before recommending investment. Philip Yarnell testified
that his primary reason for making the investment "was the fact
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011