- 44 -
1997, the sale of Solv-Ex’s Canadian operating assets and leases,
the alleged worthlessness of its technology, and the alleged
absence of either present or potential future earnings. For the
same reasons that none of the factors cited by petitioners is
sufficient, either alone or in combination, to provide credible
evidence of the alleged 1997 worthlessness of the $2 million loan
(see section IV. B., supra), those factors fail to provide
credible evidence of the alleged worthlessness of the Solv-Ex
common stock Mr. Rendall held on December 31, 1997.
Petitioners also argue that, despite continued over the
counter trading of Solv-Ex’s common stock via the “pink sheets”,
Mr. Rendall’s stock was worthless as of December 31, 1997,
because of Solv-Ex’s inability to file delinquent Forms 10-K and
10-Q and Mr. Rendall’s status as an officer of Solv-Ex with
“negative non-public insider information”, both of which rendered
Mr. Rendall’s Solv-Ex common stock nontradable on the open market
under Federal securities laws. Lastly, petitioners argue that
the “pink sheet” value “would have applied to trades of very
small lots of stock--100 to 200 share lots--and would have had no
application to * * * [Mr. Rendall].”
There is no evidence, aside from Mr. Rendall’s testimony,
that he was prohibited from trading in Solv-Ex common stock as of
December 31, 1997. Although the correspondence between counsel
for Merrill Lynch and counsel for Mr. Rendall before the sale of
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