- 224 -
much like a registered agent and a document repository, but
existing primarily for the Kanters' benefit. Gallenberger knew
that most of the documents held by Principal Services were
related to Kanter entities. The District Court concluded that
Gallenberger's sampling of documents did not discharge her duty
to make all reasonable efforts to comply with the court's order.
Finding a "glaring deficiency in her compliance," the District
Court held Gallenberger in contempt of court and granted her
until July 1, 1994 to comply fully with the court's order. Id.
at 5258, 94-2 USTC �50,480 at 85,770. Gallenberger complied with
the District Court's order of June 22, 1994, but appealed the
order to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Court
of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order in United States
v. Administrative Enters., Inc., 46 F.3d 670 (7th Cir. 1995).43
The trial of these cases commenced on June 13, 1994. At the
start of the trial, respondent's counsel indicated that subpoenas
duces tecum had been served on various entities for documents
that were to be produced at that time. Counsel for IRA and
Kanter informed the Court that the subpoenas requesting documents
from IRA, BWK, Inc., Carlco, and TMT had been served on
Gallenberger, but that Gallenberger was not the custodian of the
43
The Court of Appeals stated: "It is apparent that the
Government is interested in transactions in which Kanter and his
family and their investment vehicles are involved and not just in
the terms of the custodianship arrangement." United States v.
Administrative Enters., Inc., 46 F.3d 670, 673 (7th Cir. 1995).
Page: Previous 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011