- 38 -
general terms, and portions of his testimony were different from
Feinstein's recollection of events. For example, Alter testified
that he asked Feinstein to speak with Parker, but Feinstein
testified that Parker "didn't speak to me." Also, Alter was
under the impression that "Feinstein's friend" (Lauren) had read
the Poly Reclamation offering memorandum, but Feinstein testified
that Lauren had not seen an offering memorandum. With respect to
Winer, Alter believed that he indicated that end-users had been
scheduled for the machines, but Winer did not name the end-users.
Alter accepted at face value all of the representations made
in the offering materials, including the value of the Sentinel
EPE recycler. During the course of his testimony, he was asked
what made the Sentinel EPE recycler unique. He replied:
Again, I'm not an expert in the industry. I believe
the representation was that they had a special fluid
cooling process that was not available elsewhere. They
made the representations that it had a dual set of
blades, I believe, rotary blades, exterior rotary
blade[s] as well as the interior blades, that would
crush the plastic material more effectively.
In Provizer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-177, PI's vice
president of manufacturing and a developer of PI's prototype
recycler, William Strlzelewicz,
explained that the coolant used in the process was
plain water and not some "trade secret" chemical
compound. End-users stated that a usual method by
which the water might be "injected" was for a factory
worker to dump it on the heated material.
Asked what he did to confirm the value of the machine, Alter
testified: "I had no competence to do that, to do any
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011