- 66 -
obtain a TRO that prohibited petitioner and his corporations from
dealing any further in Northwest tickets. The record amply
demonstrates that between the execution of the Interim Agreement
in early April and Northwest’s filing suit in mid-June, it became
obvious to Northwest that petitioner was hiding assets and would
not cooperate in providing any restitution of amounts that he
acknowledged were owed by his corporations. The record is
equally clear that it was petitioner’s actions that caused the
change in Northwest’s attitude, from reluctant creditor willing
to provide additional ticket stock to legal adversary determined
to prohibit petitioner and his corporations from any further
dealings in Northwest tickets.39 Belofsky conceded in his
testimony in this case that the sale of Northwest tickets
constituted 90 percent of petitioner’s corporations’ business
activity at the time.
On this record, we do not accept petitioner’s contention
that his actions with respect to the funds at issue were for the
primary benefit of his corporations rather than himself. It is
clear that petitioner’s actions harmed his corporations,
39 In this regard, we look to petitioner’s actions both in
the months leading up to Northwest’s filing suit and after the
filing and granting of the TRO, when petitioner’s conduct caused
Northwest to threaten to seek sanctions on several occasions and,
in our view, hardened Northwest’s animosity towards petitioner.
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011