- 14 -
contradicted by letters dated December 19, 1991, and June 1,
1992. These letters indicate that petitioners were given the
opportunity to enter into a piggyback arrangement. Moreover,
petitioner also testified that he did not remember signing the
Forms 872. Again, petitioner’s testimony was contradicted. At
trial, respondent introduced signed copies of the Forms 872.
These instances reveal that with regard to events surrounding
this case petitioner’s memory is failing and unreliable. Apart
from petitioner’s own testimony, petitioners have failed to
present any evidence that demonstrates that they were not offered
the standard settlement offer. Under these circumstances, we are
unconvinced by petitioner’s self-serving and failing memory.
There is in this record no credible evidence that respondent
failed to send the standard settlement offer to petitioners
although the offer was sent to all other investors in the
plastics recycling project. On the other hand, respondent has
presented no affirmative evidence of mailing the standard offer
to petitioners. Respondent urges, quite reasonably, that it is
unfair to expect him to produce evidence concerning newly alleged
circumstances years after the events in question. Moreover,
petitioners have failed to convince us that they were inclined to
accept the standard settlement offer. Petitioner is an
experienced attorney who is aware that cases can be resolved
through settlement. We also note that petitioners have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011