- 44 -
Sentinel EPE recycler), and a surrogate judge from Rhode Island
who did business in the Boston-Cape Cod area (and who had no
expertise in engineering or plastics materials). Becker
testified that he was allowed to see PI's internal accounting
controls regarding the allocation of royalty payments and PI's
recordkeeping system in general. In Provizer v. Commissioner,
supra, this Court found that "PI had no cost accounting system or
records."
Becker confirmed at trial that he relied on the offering
materials and discussions with PI personnel to establish the
value and purported uniqueness of the recyclers. Becker
testified that he relied upon the reports of Ulanoff and Burstein
contained in the offering materials, despite the fact that: (1)
Ulanoff's report did not contain any hard data to support his
opinion; (2) Ulanoff was not an economics or plastics expert; (3)
Becker did not know whether Burstein was an engineer; and (4)
Burstein was a client of Miller's and was not an independent
expert. In addition, Ulanoff and Burstein each owned an interest
in more than one partnership that owned Sentinel recyclers as
part of the Plastics Recycling program.
Becker explained at trial that in the course of his practice
when evaluating prospective investments for clients, he focuses
on the economics of the transaction and investigates whether
there is a need or market for the product or service. With
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011