- 256 -
respondent's deficiency determinations or to air his grievances
against Mr. Kersting and possibly achieve some advantage against
Mr. Kersting's threats to collect on Mr. Thompson's promissory
notes. Our review of Mr. Thompson's testimony at the trial of
test cases, which testimony was both favorable and detrimental
to the cause of the test case petitioners, suggests that
Mr. Thompson may have viewed the trial of the test cases as an
opportunity to attempt to attain both objectives. On the one
hand, Mr. Thompson sought to prove that, because of his prior
involvement in the First Savings acquisition, he had a legitimate
business purpose; i.e., a profit motive, for participating in
Mr. Kersting's programs. On the other hand, Mr. Thompson was the
only test case petitioner to testify that Mr. Kersting had orally
assured him that promissory notes would not be enforced.
Despite Mr. Thompson's apparently conflicting objectives, we
are convinced that Mr. Thompson's testimony at the trial of the
test cases was truthful. Although Mr. Thompson testified that
Mr. Kersting had assured him that promissory notes would not be
enforced, Mr. Thompson's testimony merely corroborated
Mr. Kersting's written assurances or comfort letters to so-called
"nervous Nellies". Moreover, in a March 1986 letter, Mr.
Kersting had confirmed to Mr. Thompson that his promissory notes
would be canceled if Mr. Thompson would surrender all relevant
stock certificates to Mr. Kersting. It appears that Mr. Kersting
later reneged on this confirmation by requiring that Mr. Thompson
Page: Previous 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011