- 40 -
case of insolvency, the argument against worthlessness is
particularly strong when the debtor is still operating and is
taking steps to become profitable. See Estate of Pachella v.
Commissioner, 37 T.C. 347, 353 (1961), affd. 310 F.2d 815 (3d
Cir. 1962); Trinco Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra at 965;
Ockrant v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-60.
b. Business Plan
As discussed supra, Solv-Ex presented a comprehensive
business plan in the amended disclosure statement. That plan
centered on the exploitation of the retained technology and was
expected to generate a positive cash flow by 2000. The plan was
a key component of the plan of reorganization that was approved
by bankruptcy courts in both the United States and Canada.
Although the evidence indicates that, as of the trial date (April
5, 2005), all efforts to bring that plan to fruition have been
unsuccessful, it does not reveal the reasons for that lack of
success. More significantly, there is no evidence that that lack
of success was foreseeable when the plan was formulated during
the period of the joint bankruptcies (July 1997 to July 1998).
Certainly, the failure of what appeared to be a promising project
in Venezuela for the commercialization of the Ti02S technology,
caused by a change in the Venezuelan Government in late 1998, was
unforeseen and was, in Mr. Rendall’s own words, “a circumstance
beyond my control.” Moreover, the fact that Solv-Ex was still in
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011