- 30 -
show that respondent’s determination is not entitled to the
presumption of correctness. Petitioner, therefore, bears the
burden of proof on this issue.
2. Petitioner’s Reasonableness Argument
a. Petitioner’s Analysis of Madison
Petitioner contends that he exercised the due care of a
reasonable and ordinarily prudent person by performing a
scientific and economic analysis of Madison. Petitioner supports
his contention by arguing that his reasonableness is evidenced by
his review of the POM, his review of Government and private
sector publications that predicted oil prices would continue to
rise, his analysis of the incentives for the parties to the
venture, and his projected 18-percent return for himself over the
life of the venture. Petitioner, however, has failed to
establish that he gave due consideration to the numerous caveats
and warnings in the POM, that he was qualified to value the
recyclers and related equipment, or that he otherwise acted
reasonably in performing his analysis of Madison.
In determining that Madison was an economically viable
investment, there is no evidence that petitioner considered Mr.
Roberts’s lack of relevant experience, the lack of market and
patent protection for the recyclers, or the uncertainty of future
virgin resin prices and the marketability of recycled pellets.
Petitioner also ignored the inconsistency between the POM’s
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