- 33 -
clients and that there was a sufficient base of end-users for the
machines; yet he never saw PI’s client list. At the time of the
closing of the various partnerships, Becker did not know who the
end-users were or whether there were any end-users actually
committed to the transaction.
Becker purportedly checked the price of the pellets by
reading trade journals of the plastics industry. He did not,
however, use those same journals to investigate the recyclers’
purported value. In concluding that the SAB partnerships would
be economically profitable, Becker made two assumptions that he
concedes were unsupported by any hard data: (1) That there was a
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
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011