Court Opinion

ID: 4479279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-16 21:13:34.774553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:03:28.275479
License: Public Domain

Withey, /., dissenting: I concur in the dissent of Judge Pierce. It is true that the institute, prior to embarking upon the “sale” transaction here, made an investigation of Clay Brown & Company as though its intent was to carry out a real sale. In my view, this investigation was part and parcel of the elaborately developed bailout plan and is nothing more than window dressing. I doubt if the 10 percent “rental” retained by the institute was in consideration of its services rendered because I do not believe that it rendered any services. I would have held the 10 percent retention to have been in essence a gift. TueneR, /., agrees with this dissent.