- 61 -
official correspondence from Winer had been notification that he
had been ordered by the District Court to resign as TMP of the
partnerships and waive his right to participate in any court
proceedings. Winer ultimately settled this case with respondent
and failed to inform the other partners. Karras testified that
he did not learn that the case had been settled until he was
assessed by respondent for his share of the partnership
deficiency. However, Karras offered no reasonable explanation
why he did not take steps to keep himself informed of the status
of the case, or why he did not make any inquiries of Winer when
he received no further information. Although Karras is not an
attorney, he is a sophisticated businessman with experience
dealing with complicated matters. We note that he employed a
C.P.A. who appeared as a witness in other plastics recycling
litigation and had some contact with Plastics Recycling
partnerships other than Davenport. It seems reasonable to us
that an individual who is aware that he has a financial stake in
the outcome of any litigation in this Court would take whatever
steps were necessary to keep himself informed. The same would
hold true for the other partners of Davenport, which we have
noted required an investment of $50,000 per unit. In any event,
Winer's failure to notify the limited partners of his decision to
enter into a settlement with respondent does not justify the
extraordinary relief of vacating the final decision in this case.
Winer's failure to act was directed to the limited partners, and
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011