- 6 -
but neither were any of the 1500 other limited partners affected
by any AMCOR-related cases then before the Court. Following a
hearing on the motion to stay, we granted the motion to stay and
the proceedings were stayed until April 3, 1991 (the stay).
Upon a motion by respondent on April 1, 1991, the stay was
extended to October 3, 1991 (the extension). The stay was
lifted, however, upon the motion of the petitioning partners,
filed April 9, 1991, requesting that we reconsider the extension.
The petitioning partners argued on behalf of themselves and the
other limited partners of the partnership (together, the limited
partners). They argued that, although petitioner was technically
a party to this case, see section 6226(c)(1) and Rule 247(a), he
was not a participating partner, and the real parties in interest
were the limited partners, who held 99 percent of the partnership
interests. The petitioning partners argued:
[T]he limited partners * * * had no involvement in the
activities and events which give rise to Respondent’s
criminal investigation. The * * * [limited partners]
are neither the actors in nor the targets of alleged
criminality – they are passive investors who seek only
the prompt adjudication of civil tax claims asserted
and initiated by the Respondent * * *
The stay was lifted on June 19, 1991, and respondent filed
the answer on August 19, 1991.
On May 1, 1992, we set this case for trial at the trial
session scheduled to commence in Washington, D.C., on October 5,
1992.
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