- 16 -
generally, the basis for the polystyrene forecasts contained in
the POM, the history of the equipment, and whether and how the
equipment was running. Petitioner never spoke with an expert in
plastic recycling either before or after he made his investment,
however, because he felt he had a better understanding than most
regarding the technology of styrene, polystyrene, and recycling.
In performing his research, petitioner considered that
Madison had no operating history, and he was aware that the POM
stated that “[PI] has no experience in the manufacturing and
operation of the Sentinel EPS Recyclers, nor does RRI or PI have
any experience in using or selling the resin pellets resulting
from the second stage of recycling.” Mr. Roberts informed
petitioner, however, that, contrary to the statements in the POM,
PI had been running the recyclers for some time.
Petitioner did not seek independent legal advice regarding
Madison between November 24, 1982, the date he received the POM,
and November 30, 1982, the date he invested in Madison.
Petitioner did request, however, a copy of the limited partner
opinion referenced in the HG&C cover letter accompanying the POM.
Petitioner received the limited partner opinion sometime after
December 21, 1982, the date Mr. Roberts countersigned the
agreement, and after petitioner had tendered his money for the
investment. The limited partner opinion was nearly identical to
the general partner opinion. The only differences were that the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011