- 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 thePage: 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