- 11 -
on a stipulated record.6 But, petitioner has not shown that any
of the facts stipulated in Greene were different from the RRA
facts. As noted, we have examined the placement offering
memorandum in RRA, and the transactions set forth in the offering
appear virtually identical with the facts that the Court found in
Provizer. Moreover, at trial, Elliot I. Miller (Mr. Miller), who
represented PI (the manufacturer of the recyclers) during the
relevant period, testified that the same type of machines went to
both RRA and Clearwater, and that the recyclers were delivered to
RRA during 1981. Mr. Miller testified that the partnerships were
identical with two exceptions:
The number of machines may not have been the same. * * *
And the general partners were different. * * * But other
than that, the transactions were the same.
As to the materiality of the alleged misrepresentation, Mr.
Kamerman testified that he would not have recommended to
petitioner that he be bound by litigation involving another
partnership because there would be a “different general partner
from” RRA. Mr. Kamerman explained, that in his view “the general
partner being different is a fundamental difference, and it’s the
6 Counsel has raised questions as to the competency of the
representation in the Greene cases; he did not know, and
apparently had made no effort to find out, however, what records
counsel in the Greene cases had. While petitioner has complained
that he cannot determine whether the partnerships were
substantially identical, it appears that there may have been
avenues that were available, but, for reasons that are not
readily apparent, were not explored.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011