- 31 -
market for the pellets, and (2) that market demand for them would
increase.
Becker had a financial interest in the SAB recycling
partnerships generally. Directly or indirectly he received fees
of more than $500,000 with respect to the SAB recycling
partnerships. Becker also received fees for investment advice
from some individual investors and from the SAB recycling
partnerships for preparing their partnership returns. As Becker
himself indicated in his testimony, potential investors could not
have read the memorandum and remained ignorant of the financial
benefits accruing to him.
Petitioner is a very well-educated and highly accomplished
and sophisticated attorney. Without question, he possessed the
intellect, skills, experience, and resources to have the
viability of the SAB transactions thoroughly investigated either
by himself or by an independent qualified expert. Petitioners
claim that they relied on Becker for the bona fides and viability
of the SAB transactions. Yet Becker’s expertise was in taxation,
not plastics materials or plastics recycling, and his
investigation and analysis of the Plastics Recycling transactions
reflected this circumstance. Moreover, Becker indicated that he
was careful not to mislead any of his clients regarding the
particulars of his limited investigation. As he put it: “I
don’t recall saying to a client I did due diligence * * *
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011