- 15 -
Outside of Mr. Matsuda, petitioners made no other inquiry
into the viability of the partnership's proposed research and
operations. The Court finds it notable that the offering listed
at least 15 potential uses of jojoba nuts; yet, petitioners
failed to explore the plausibility of any of those potential
uses. Some of the potential uses listed in the offering were
various lubricants for high-speed or high-temperature machinery,
cosmetics, shampoos and soaps, sunscreens, pharmaceuticals,
cooking oils, disinfectants, polishing waxes, corrosion
inhibitors, candles, animal feed supplements, and fertilizer.
Petitioners' failure to investigate independently any of the
enumerated potential uses of jojoba plants was unreasonable under
the circumstances.
Petitioners had no legal or agricultural background or
training; yet, they consulted no one in these fields of endeavor
prior to investing in Jojoba Hawaii. Petitioners appear to argue
that they felt no need to consult an appropriate expert or
experts to examine the substance of the investment because they
were relying on the advice of Mr. Matsuda, petitioner wife's
father. To the contrary, the Court believes that, at a minimum,
petitioners should have contacted an attorney to review the
offering and provide legal advice surrounding the partnership. A
reasonable and ordinarily prudent investor under the
circumstances would have consulted an attorney. Also a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011