- 7 - Subsequently, within and without the bankruptcy proceedings, the parties engaged in prolonged and lengthy litigation. In particular, Admiral sued the limited partners who had defaulted on the outstanding investor notes, contending that it had become the holder of the aforementioned notes. The limited partners, in turn, countersued Admiral, alleging that they had been fraudulently induced to enter the partnerships and that Admiral had been party to the fraud. On November 10, 1989, Admiral and the representatives of the limited partners, executed a Settlement Agreement. The preamble to the Settlement Agreement states that Admiral and the investors were "parties to certain lawsuits" which, at the time of the agreement, were "pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and/or the Arizona Superior Court in which Admiral has asserted claims against Investors and Investors have asserted claims against Admiral."6 Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, an investor was given until December 31, 1989, to elect one of two options. The first option was as follows: Commencing on the later of (i) January 1, 1990, or (ii) the effective date of any enacted statutory provisions amending the Internal Revenue Code to provide for preferential treatment with respect to the 6It appears that at least some of the limited partners in the various partnerships were parties to a suit against Admiral, but the record does not disclose whether all of the limited partners involved in this proceeding were parties to such lawsuit.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011