- 6 -
Mr. Haydon did not appear at the hearing. However, in light
of respondent's belated decision to oppose Mr. Chwasky's motion,
the Court offered Mr. Haydon the opportunity for a second hearing
or to file a written statement with the Court. Mr. Haydon
elected the second option and filed a written statement with the
Court on May 28, 1996.
Mr. Haydon's written statement contains a discussion of the
circumstances surrounding Mr. Haydon's communications with
respondent's North Atlantic Regional Counsel's office leading up
to the filing of Mr. Chwasky's Motion for Leave to File Motion to
Vacate Decision. In sum, Mr. Haydon contends that Regional
Counsel's decision not to object to the motion for leave was
based on equitable considerations; i.e., that Transpac's general
partner has defrauded the limited partners and that the latter
deserved their day in court. In this regard, Mr. Haydon argues
that respondent should be bound by Regional Counsel's decision
not to object to the pending motion.
Discussion
The question presented is whether grounds exist in this case
for vacating what is otherwise a final decision. As explained in
greater detail below, we shall deny Mr. Chwasky's Motion for
Leave to File Motion to Vacate Decision.
The decision in this case was entered on October 26, 1994.
Sec. 7459(c). A decision of this Court becomes final upon
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011