- 13 -
in the research and development of jojoba. In contrast, the
offering, which petitioner testified he read, characterized Mr.
Kellen as having no experience in the research and development of
jojoba.
Petitioner seemingly contends that his experience with
farming and his reading about jojoba gave him confidence in the
viability of his investment in the partnership, yet he presented
no evidence that he actually applied any of his knowledge through
an investigation of the partnership. If anything, petitioner’s
knowledge should have prompted him to inquire into the
operational aspects of the partnership and into the nature of the
“research” U.S. Agri was to conduct under the terms of the R&D
agreement. The record provides no evidence that petitioner ever
visited the jojoba plantation or inquired into U.S. Agri’s
ability to conduct research. If petitioner had investigated the
nature of the purported research U.S. Agri was to conduct, he
likely would have discovered that it amounted to nothing more
than farming activity. With petitioner’s farming background and
his professed interest in jojoba, we find it difficult to believe
he would have relied solely on the promoter’s investigation if he
viewed the partnership as a long-term investment.5
Petitioners’ contention that they were not negligent in
5 We note that petitioner went to Israel to investigate
drip irrigation for his own apple orchard.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011