Ernest I. Korchak - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          The Private Offering Memorandum                                             
               On or about November 24, 1982, petitioner received Madison’s           
          private offering memorandum (POM) and an accompanying cover                 
          memorandum from Mr. Cole.  The POM informed potential investors             
          that Madison’s business would be conducted in accordance with the           
          plastics recycling transactions described above.  The POM also              
          stated that                                                                 
               The [partnership] Units are being offered through * * *                
               [HGSC] as Placement Agent on a best efforts basis.                     
               * * * [HGSC] will be paid a selling commission equal to                
               10% of the per Unit offering price for each Unit sold.                 
               This selling commission may also be paid to other                      
               qualified broker-dealers as selling agents for each                    
               Unit sold by them.                                                     
          Additionally, the POM listed significant business and tax risk              
          factors associated with an investment in Madison.  Specifically,            
          the POM warned:  (1) There was a substantial likelihood of an               
          audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); (2) the IRS may                
          challenge the purchase price of the recyclers to be paid by F&G             
          to ECI as being in excess of the recyclers’ fair market value;              
          (3) the partnership had a limited operating history; (4) the                
          general partner had limited experience in marketing recycling or            
          similar equipment; (5) the limited partners would have no control           
          over the conduct of the partnership’s business; (6) there was no            
          established market for the recyclers and they had no history of             
          commercial use; (7) patent protection would not be sought for the           
          recyclers; (8) there were no assurances that market prices for              






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011