- 30 -
recycler), and a surrogate judge from Rhode Island who did
business in the Boston-Cape Cod area (and who had no experience
in engineering or plastics materials). Becker testified that he
was allowed to see PI’s internal accounting controls regarding
the allocation of royalty payments and PI’s record-keeping system
in general. In Provizer v. Commissioner, supra, though, this
Court found that “PI had no cost accounting system or records.”
Becker confirmed in his testimony that he relied on the
memorandum and discussions with PI personnel to establish the
value and purported uniqueness of the recyclers. Becker
testified that he relied upon the reports of Ulanoff and Burstein
contained in the offering materials, despite the fact that: (1)
Ulanoff’s report did not contain any hard data to support his
opinion; (2) Ulanoff was not an economics or plastics expert; (3)
Becker did not know whether Burstein was an engineer; and (4)
Burstein was Miller’s client and was not an independent expert.
Becker further explained in his testimony that in the course
of his practice when evaluating prospective investments for
clients, he focuses on the economics of the transaction and
investigates whether there is a need or market for the product or
service. The records indicate, though, that Becker overlooked
several red flags regarding the economic viability of and market
for the recyclers. The memorandum warned that there was no
established market for the recyclers. Becker never saw any
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011