- 8 -
(having refused to settle on a cash basis in 1986, 1987, and 1988,
having "waited out" the litigation of the lead test cases until
our opinion in Krause v. Commissioner, supra, was rendered in
1992, and now not liking the results) are simply the victims of
their own procrastination or litigation strategy, not of any
structural defect or fraud on the Court.
Respondent also emphasizes that, under the TEFRA provisions,
respondent had no affirmative obligation to notify movants that,
in earlier years, some of the Elektra Hemisphere investors settled
their disputes with respondent relating thereto on any particular
terms.
Respondent responds further that --
(1) movants did not make timely requests for consistent
settlements during the time period when respondent’s
cash settlement position was open to all Elektra
Hemisphere investors;
(2) that there is no requirement that respondent
specifically notify each investor of each settlement
agreement; and
(3) with regard to the specific settlement agreements
that movants entered into, movants have not shown any
fraud, malfeasance, or misrepresentation as a basis for
setting aside the settlement agreements.
We agree with each of respondent’s arguments.
The evidence indicates that the cash settlements that, during
1986, 1987, and 1988, many investors entered into with respondent
reflected a date of September 30, 1986, by which date, under the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011