- 265 -
and large attributable to Mr. Kersting's lack of candor as
demonstrated by both inherent contradictions and inconsistencies
with the written record. We are convinced that Mr. Alexander's
testimony was not material to Judge Goffe's findings respecting
Mr. Kersting's lack of credibility.
Like Mr. Thompson, Mr. Alexander testified that Mr. Kersting
had represented to him that stock subscription plan promissory
notes would not be enforced and would be returned or destroyed
upon the termination of the plan. Although Judge Goffe concluded
that there was a pervasive stock surrender policy in the Kersting
programs, we note that Judge Goffe did not list Mr. Alexander's
testimony among the nine items listed in support of his
conclusion on the point. In any event, assuming that Judge Goffe
took Mr. Alexander's testimony into account, we are satisfied
that Mr. Alexander's testimony was not material to Judge Goffe's
holdings that there was a pervasive stock surrender policy within
the Kersting programs or that Kersting promissory notes did not
constitute genuine debt. As previously discussed in our analysis
of the lack of materiality of Mr. Thompson's testimony on this
same subject, Judge Goffe relied upon a long list of items in
support of these holdings. Considering all the evidence in
support of Judge Goffe's holdings, we are convinced that Judge
Goffe would have reached the same conclusions without Mr.
Alexander's testimony on the subject. Moreover, even assuming
for the sake of argument that Mr. Alexander's testimony was
material to Judge Goffe's holding respecting a pervasive stock
Page: Previous 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011