Thomas N. Carmena - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         

          an agricultural research and development partnership.  Dr.                  
          Stephan had learned of the Utah I partnership from one of its               
          promoters, Gary Sheets (Mr. Sheets), who was affiliated with                
          Coordinated Financial Services (CFS) in Salt Lake City, Utah.               
               Dr. Stephan provided petitioner with a fairly voluminous               
          private placement memorandum3 (the offering), which described the           
          proposed investment in and the activities to be conducted through           
          Utah I.  Petitioner claims that he read the offering; however,              
          petitioner does not specifically recall reading certain portions            
          of the offering regarding the risks associated with investment.4            
          Petitioner alleges that he passed along the offering to his                 
          certified public accountant, Joe Salgo (Mr. Salgo), who routinely           
          prepared petitioner's Federal income tax returns.  Petitioner               
          further alleges that Mr. Salgo gave a favorable response to                 
          petitioner's potential investment in Utah I, although petitioner            
          cannot recall any specific conversation he had with Mr. Salgo               
          regarding Utah I.                                                           



               3    The private placement memorandum consisted of some 47             
          pages, plus 8 exhibits, and a table of contents.                            
               4    When questioned at trial about reading the offering               
          petitioner responded, "I'm sure I read it".  However, when asked            
          whether he recalled reading certain portions of the offering                
          dealing with the risk factors and highly speculative nature of              
          the investment, petitioner could not recall reading those                   
          portions.  The Court surmises from petitioner's testimony that,             
          if he did read the offering at all, he certainly did not                    
          accomplish a thorough review thereof.                                       




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