Malcolm I. Lewin and Trina Lewin - Page 38

                                       - 38 -                                         
               B.  Alleged Experts                                                    
               Petitioners contend that Dooskin and Sacco provided the                
          requisite independent analysis of the investment.  We disagree.             
          Dooskin and Sacco, neither of whom had any knowledge of the                 
          plastics recycling industry, reviewed the memorandum for, at                
          most, 7 hours combined.  Their only knowledge of SAB Foam came              
          from the memorandum (i.e., promotional material) and from what              
          petitioner told them.  Dooskin testified that he informed                   
          petitioner the investment “passed muster”, but that the economics           
          of the investment “was dependent upon the valuation of the                  
          equipment”.  Petitioners, however, failed to undertake the                  
          necessary due diligence and seek a thorough and independent                 
          analysis of the value of the recyclers despite Dooskin’s warning.           
          We are not convinced that Dooskin’s and Sacco’s review of the               
          memorandum was any more than a very limited inquiry.  Neither               
          petitioner nor his partners made any separate payment for                   
          professional services by Dooskin and Sacco, and consequently they           
          could not expect the accountants to do more than read the                   
          memorandum for form and apparent professionalism, potential                 
          benefits, and obvious dangers.                                              
               C.  Petitioners’ Relationship With Miller and Becker                   
               Regardless of the foregoing, petitioners contend that                  
          petitioner’s alleged “deep and longstanding professional                    
          relationship” with his advisers justified his reliance on them.             

Page:  Previous  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011