 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
STIP W PREJUDICE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY |
" SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
TMG-II, et al., : Index
Plaintiffs, : IAS Part
- against - . .
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al. . .
Defendants. : ACTION
----------------------------------------x
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the ~
undersigned counsel to plaintiffs herein and
Stefanou, Frank, Stefanou t Co., and Frank
"Stefanou Defendants") herein that, whereas no party
infant or incompetent person for whom a committee
appointed, this action, as against the Stefanou
hereby dismissed with prejudice and without
Dated: New York, New York
Att&neys/for
New York,
Attorneys
f - Stefanou,
& co., and
747 Third
New York,
(212)
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
STEFANOU AFF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY TRANSACTIONS ATOM PRICE WATERHOUSE TAX SWORN |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
';
18
'I COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----'---'------`--------------------x
TMG-II, et al.
Plaintiffs,
- against -
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
,, "
I'
Defendants.
------------------3-c______________
pi
,; ' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ss.:
I
PETER STEFANOU, being dul
1. I am an individual
. . ,-..,,
action and formerly a partner
F&&A,...
~ Stefanou & Co., also a defendant
:' 2. Beginning in or about
as
/ retained to render various
I'
on
,i
~~i behalf of the limited partnership
in
1;
or about December 1980, we were
those
#' services on behalf of the limited
I had
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
REP MEM TO OPP MTD
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK COUNSEL GEORGE ELLARD SUPREME COURT COUNTY CERRENCE VILLIAMS FIRM CCH RPTR LOSS PROFITS RPP DIV RERRENCE |
_
,
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ` - - - - - x
TMG-II, et al.,`
2/87
- against -
Sherman
FRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
'-'--'------------------'--x
REPLY OF PETER
AND FRANK & CO.
TO
THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS
CROSS-MOTION
TO
10017
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
PLF MEM OPP MTD AND MTSJ
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT AFF SUPREME COURT COUNTY MOTION NOTE STATES Q11 TMG-II INDICTMENT DISMISS INVESTMENT ZOLN SUNRAT YORK TIMES CIR DEFENSE FRAUDULENT |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------~-------~~~~
TMG-II, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
- against - : IAS
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al., :
Defendants. :
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
DEFENDANT.PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO.
TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Preliminarv Statement
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum
opposition to the motion of defendant Price
(llPrice WaterhouseI@) (i) to dismiss the Amended
ground that it is time barred, (ii) to dismiss
claim on the ground that it fails to
alternatively, (iii) for summary judgment
Amended Complaint is time barred, or (iv)
plaintiffs I fraud claim on the ground that'the
As is conclusively established
relevant legal authority cited below, and the
set forth in the accompanying affidavits of
Aff."), Peter Stefanou (the l*Stefanou Aff." ),
(the "Mendelsohn Aff .'I) and David M. Hashmall
Aff."), Price Waterhouse's motion is entirely
should be denied in its entirety. TO support its motion
the purported bar of the statute of limitations,
asks this court to draw inferences and resolve
Waterhouse's favor sharply disputed issues of fact at
this action where discovery has yet to commence.
authority discussed below makes clear, however, motions
a fraud action based upon a statute of limitations
granted only in the rare circumstance, not applicable
it "conclusively appears" that plaintiff had actual
defendant's fraudulent acts, or knowledge of facts
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PAUL COUNTY OSHATZ FRANK GABRIEL TREASUREVALE CHARLES HERBERT SUPREME COURT MICHAEL FARRELL MAURICE GOODMAN PLUMBING HEATING PARISER STROCHAK KOVNER LANKENAU PRICE WATERHOUSE DROR SHNAYER GABRIEL SUMNER DALA BICKFORD JOSEPHINE LEA ISELIN VICTOR JOHN HERBERT MISSRY SWORN |
I ,
t c
SUPREME COURT OF THE. STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------
TMG-II, a New York l'imited partner-
ship, and BREAKWATER ASSOCIATES,
New York partnership, CARNEVALE
ASSOCIATES, a New York partnership,
III INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, a New
York partnership, ALEXANDER H.
COHEN, DALA ASSOCIATES, a New York
1
partnership, DAIA III ASSOCIATES,
New York partnership, RICHARD E.
FARRELL, MAURICE GOODMAN, PAUL
GROSZ, DEBORAH GROSZ, KEW GARDENS
PLUMBING & HEATING CORP., FRANK
LANGELLA, BERNARD MINKOFF, BRETT
NORDGREN, PAUL S. PARISER, ALAN
RIEVMAN, AARON N. SIEGEL, CARL
SPIELVOGEL, SQUARE FOUR ASSOCIATES,
a New York partnership, DONALD
STROCHAK, GABRIEL SUMNER, TREASURE-
VALE 81 ASSOCIATES, a New York
partnership, and WILLIAM WOLFF,
on their own behalves and as limited
partners suing on behalf of TMG
ASSOCIATES, a New York partnership,
and HERMAN FEINGOLD, CHARLES H.
GABRIEL, CHARLES H. KELLERT, LAN-
KENAU, KOVNER & BICKFORD, a New
York partnership, JAMES H. MARONEY,
JR., SEAWALL ASSOCIATES, a New York
partnership, LEON SILVERMAN, and
TREASUREVALE ASSOCIATES, a New York
partnership,
Plaintiffs,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
MEM SUP MTD BY STEFANOU
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FRANK STEFANOU LAW NEGLIGENCE CANNQT SUE AGENTS MOVANTS ATTORNEY LAW FIRM WASHINGTON POST FRAUD MALPRACTICE BREACH SECURE RELIEF THE1 PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT INACCURATE NEGLIGENTLY PREPARED REPORT LIMITATIONS MARTIN ACT YORK STATUTE PRIVATE OUTSET ACCOUNTANTS CANT RACT APP DIV TIJ COUNSEL |
:j SUPREME COURT OF THE-STATE OF NEW YORK
i; COUNTY OF NEW YORK
', ,I
!I '
$I ---
ii ------------------------------
I' ,, TMG-II, et
-- al.,
;
Plaintiffs,
;: I - against - Index No. 9742/87
I: 'i
:I PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
--
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION TO DISMISS SUBMITTED BY PETER
STEFANOU, FRANK, STEFANOU 6 CO., AND FRANK 6 CO.
Page ~
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.....*..*...*........*.
3
I. Count III -- For Negligence,
And Breach Of Contract --
Dismissed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
A. The Limited Partners
Derivative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
B. The TMG II Limited
Maintain A Derivative
7
C. TMG II Cannqt Sue Its Agents
For Negligence . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
MEM SUP DEF MOT STAY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK PLAINTIFFS COURT MOTION FRANK DISMISS STEFANOU INTERROGATORY DEPOSITIONS ATTORNEYS GRANT YORK COUNTY WATERHOUSE PETER STEFANOU MEMORANDUM COMPLAINT VIOLATION MARTIN ACT CLAIMS CPLR COMPEL SEEKING INSURANCE AGREEMENTS SATISFY JUDGEMENT DISTRICT VIRGINIA REASONS |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
TMG-II, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., Index No.
FRANK, STEFANOU & COMPANY,
FRANK & COMPANY, P.C.,
PETER STEFANOU, ZAS 19
GOLDSCHMIDT, FREDERICKS, KURZMAN h OSHATZ, &q-l LG
and MICHAEL P. OSHATZ,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A STAY
.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
AND ARGUMENT
This action was filed
their complaint,
plaintiffs claim that defendants
in conduct
constituting fraud, negligence,
practice, breach
of contract and violation of the
Plaintiffs have
demanded compensatory damages of
and punitive
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
MEM OPP MTD SUP DEF JUDGE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT COUNTY INTERROGATORIES COBURN JUDGEMENT COMPEL QUEST NASS CNTY LIE DAMAGES PROCESSTT DEEM PROPER COUNSEL DAVID HASHMALL LAWRENCE HYMAN SUPREME COURT OWDIFIAD SUFFOLK COUNTY CMMISSKM EXPIRES |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-1---'--1-'----1-----__1--------131---------x
TMG-II, et al.,
I l
Plaintiffs,
I -against-
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
"'----'----'-'-----------------------x
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN
TO THE STEFANOU
MOTION FOR A STAY AND IN
OF PLAINTIFFS'
TO CPLR 3126 FOR THE ENTRY
A DEFAULT JUDGMENT
IMPOSITION OF
Preliminary
Plaintiffs respectfully
opposition to the motion of defendants
o., Frank
& co., and Peter Stefanou
'Stefanou
Defendants"), pursuant to CPLR 2201,
of the
proceedings in this action.
is alSO
submitted in support of plaintiffs'
to CPLR
3126 for the entry of a default
anou
,
Defendants, and/or the imposition
y reason
" * of their refusal and wilful
Order
dated September 22, 1989.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
MEM OPP MTD FOR COMPL ANS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY NEGLIGENCE INTERROGATORIES SWORN MEMORANDUM LAW OPPOSITION COMPLAINT SUPPORT ENTIRETY RESPONSES VIOLATIONS REPLEAD GROSS NEGLIGENCE PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE ACTION HEAD ACCOUNTANTS DEFENDANT PREJUDICE COUNSEL DAVID HASHMALL MICHAEL WALSH MELITTA SZABO DULY SWORN DEPOSES |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
TMG-II, et al., :
Plaintiffs, Index No.
: IAS Part
-against- : Justice
:
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al., :
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT IN PART AND IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION TO .
COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
Preliminarv Statement
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this memorandum of law
in opposition to the motion of defendants Frank, Stefanou
Frank & Co., and Peter Stefanou (collectively the
Defendants"), pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) and
dismiss, in part, the complaint in this action. This
of law is also submitted in support of plaintiffs'
for an order compelling the Stefanou Defendants to
interrogatories.
As is discussed fully below, the Stefanou
motion is based upon a misreading of the allegations
forth in the Amended Complaint and a misstatement
applicable law. The motion is completely without
should be denied in its entirety.
In addition, the Stefanou
respond to plaintiffs' first set of
completely unjustified and, as such, the Stefanou
should be compelled to supply plaintiffs
responses.
The Background of this Action
This action arises out of the promotion
limited partnership interests in two
partnerships, TMG Associates (llTMGt') and TMG-II.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
MEM IN REP TO PLF OPP MTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY WATERHOUSE PRICE WATERHOUSE DORMANT MATTER COUNSEL PETER KAHN |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
----1--1-------1- -X
TMG-II, & al, :
Plaintiffs, :
- against - :
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et
- al
v-1 :
Defendants. :
--w----1-3--1---- -X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS'
OPPOSITION TO THE ACCOUNTANTS' MOTION FOR A STAY
AND IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'
OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND/OR IMPOSITION
In response to the
a stay
pending resolution of an appeal
matter,
plaintiffs now ask that the
Plaintiffs also express a newly
speed
litigation that, because of their
s lain
dormant for well over two years.
The order on appeal
to an
interrogatory plaintiffs have propounded
the
accountants' motion to dismiss the bulk
filed
in this matter.
As the memorandum filed
stay explains in detail, the
ks
information about the accountants'
erage,
information that has been sealed by a protective
d
1. This memorandum is submitted
Frank
Stefanou & Company, Frank & Company,
who
shall refer to themselves as "the accountants."
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
MARSHMALL AFF SUP DEFAULT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
STEFANOU PLAINTIFFS INTERROGATORIES FIRST SET MOTION REQUESTING COURT YORK AMENDED COMPLAINT HERETO EXHIBIT DISMISS COUNSEL YORK COUNTY AFFIDAVIT CROSS-MOTION JUDGEMENT SANCTIONS HASHMALL ATTORNEYS CPLR COMPEL PRACTICE PURSUANT COSTS FRANK OPPOSITION SUMMONS RESPONSE |
" SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------x
TMG-II, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
- against -
CROSS-MOTION
~:, PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.
ENT
Defendants.
Sherman
-------------------------------------x
STATE OF NEW YORK
; ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
DAVID M. HASHMALL, being
deposes and says: pi
1. I am an attorney
practice before 1
II
the Courts of the State of
18
I
Lippman & Hashmall, attorneys
in the above- ~
captioned action. I am personally
the matters set ~,
forth herein and submit
in support of :
plaintiffs' cross-motion
to CPLR § 3126
entering a default judgment,
costs and
sanctions, against defendants
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
DEF REP MEM IN FR SUP MTD
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
FRAUD COURT YORK JUDGEMENT BROWN AFF PLAINTIFF COUNSEL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT FRAUD CLAIM SUPREME COURT COUNTY MOTION MEM OPPOS PARTNERSHIP TION BEGUN MENT ING REASON PRICE WATERHOUSE TEREX CONCEALMENTQV SIDESHOW BELONG BASIS LAW LIMITATIONS |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - -
TMG-II, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
- against -
PRICE WATERHOUSE 6 CO., et al.,
Defendants.
- - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DEFENDANT PRICE WATERHOUSE'S
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
DAVIS
1
New
(212)
Price
OF COUNSEL:
Erica B. Baird, Esq.
Price Waterhouse
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Dated: March 1, 1990
Table of Contents
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT . ..*.........**.....**... . .
ARGUMENT......... ..*.......**..... ,..*......***...
POINT I THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
BARS ALL PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS
AGAINST PRICE WATERHOUSE.................
A. Plaintiffs Did Not Commence
This Suit Within Two Years
of Their Discovery of Facts
Sufficient To Provide Notice
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
DEF MEM SUP MTD
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COMPL COUNTY AMEND CONTRACT HOUSE PRICE WATERHOUSE YORK MERIT CLOCK WRONGDOING AMENDED COMPLAINT HEREWITH TMG ENTITIES LAWSUIT GROSS NEGLIGENCE BREACH COR DISCOVERY PARTNERSHIP LVBASELESS NEWS SUPP COURT LIMITATIONS BASIS FRAUD ACTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MENT COUNSEL |
5
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----------1-----_-- x c~uy
TMG-II, et al., : .- .-
Plaintiffs, :
- against - :
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al., :
Defendants. :
----I--------------- X
DEFENDANT PRICE WATERHOUSE'S
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ITS MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant Price Waterhouse respectfully
this memorandum of law in support of its motion
the Amended Complaint on grounds that it is time-barred
that plaintiffs fail to state a claim for fraud,
alternative, for summary judgment on grounds that
complaint is time-barred and that the plaintiffs'
has no merit.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The plaintiffs in this action are two New
limited partnerships, TMG Associates (IITMG") and
various wealthy individuals who invested in them.
for their investments, these individuals were to
enormous tax losses through low-risk trading in
government securities, and precious metals.
years after a wave of publicity charged that the TMG and
TMG-II trades were shams, and more than six years after TMG
and TMG-II terminated their relationship with Price
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
DECISION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
REPLYING AFFIDAVITS FOREGOING PAPERS |
-
- / F
Fm. MSOl-a /
The following papers numbered 1 to r
Answering Affidavits - Exhibits
Replying Affidavits
Upon the foregoing papers it is ordered that this
/ #
Dated 3 f-70-
I J.S.C.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
16
.
BURTON STATEMENT 2
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS |
c -_-
_ . ..-
--1-
-- F------.
. . . ..-.
J_ _ --_.. _/.---.- SUPREME COURT :
,,,' IAS PART 19
--------------------______11____11_____
TMG-II, et al,,
Index No.
9742/w
- against -
#i 0f g/8/89
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
_' -~--~--~~~~~l-_-----------~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6
BURTON S. SHERMAN, J.:
The defendants
dividually, the
accounting firm of
its successor
firm, Frank and Co. move to
, fourth and
fifth causes of action
pursuant to
CPLR 3211(a)(3), b)(5)
that various
plaintiffs have no legal
the action is
barred by the statute
and res judicata
(collateral estoppel),
pleadings are
insufficient,
The plaintiffs
TMG, a limited
partnership TMG-II
partners of both
partnership entities.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
17
.
BURTON STATEMENT 1
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY DAVIS POLK WARDWELL DEFENDANTS SUPREME COURT PLAINTIFFS PRICE WATERHOUSE MELITTA SWORN DEPOSITING INDEXNO IAS JUSTICE SHERMAN AFFIDAVIT DULY SWORN DEPOSE AGE PARTY ATTORNEYS ENTRY POSTPAID YORK CITY EXCLUSIVE CARE CUSTODY STATES POST OFFIAE POST OFFIAE DEPARTMENT CHASE MANHATTAN PLAZA |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------x
:
TMG-II, et al., Index
. .
Plaintiffs, IAS
. . Justice
- against - d
@'NOTICE
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
of the Supreme Court, County of New York, in:-the
:~' action, dated April 9,
( 1990, was entered on April
,~, office of the Clerk of the Court.
Dated: New York, New York
July 3, 1990
LIPPMAN & HASHMALL
Attorneys for
551 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10176
(212) 370-1800
TO: DAVIS, POLK & WARDWELL
Attorneys for Defendant
Price Waterhouse & Co.
One Chase Manhattan Plaza
New York, New York 10005
iI (212) 530-4000
: COURT .OF THE STATE klF NEW YORK
.
AN
-
SNIPPETS:
|
|
18
.
BURKE AFF OPP MT DFAULT J
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COUNTY SUPREME COURT YORE SANCTIONS YORX JUDGEMENT COMPLAINT DESPITE SWORN WATERHOUSE |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE 'OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
TMG-II, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
Defendants.
~
STATE OF NEW YORE ) )ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK)
JOSEPH M. BURKE, being duly sworn,
1. I am a member of the firm
co-
counsel for defendants Frank & Company,
&
Company, and Peter Stefanou (hereafter
the
"accountantsll). I submit this affidavit
to
plaintiffs' cross-motion to enter a default
for
sanctions.
2. The relationship between
and
defendants' counsel throughout the course
has
always open open and straightforward.
cross-motion for a default judgment
ite
surprising. Defendants did not ignore
el
requests; on the contrary, as the
demonstrates, plaintiffs' counsel was
of
defendants' actions at all times.
3. After the decision of the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
19
.
ANSWER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT ENGAGEMENT PRICE WATERHOUSE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE YORK TMG TMG-II LAW MONETARY GROUP ADMITS PLAINTIFFS ANTS OSHATZ MEMBER FIRM GFKLO MEETINGS SEWICES MENT FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE RELIEF SOLE DAMAGES ALLEGE INVESTMENTS COUNSEL ERICA BAIRD ESQ |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
l COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---w--1 ---------a---x
TMG-II, et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
- against - :
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al., : IAS
Defendants. :
Defendant Price Waterhouse, by its
Polk & Wardwell, answers the Amended Complaint
follows:
a 1. Lacks knowledge sufficient to
the allegations of paragraph 1, except denies that there
any basis for this action, and admits, on information
belief, that TMG Associates (VMGl') limited
interests were offered for sale in 1979 and that TMG-II
limited partnership interests were offered for
a 2. Lacks knowledge sufficient to
the allegations of paragraph 2, except denies that Price
Waterhouse in any way knew of, assisted in or
l fraudulent scheme as alleged in the last sentence
3. Admits, on information and belief,
Markowitz entered a plea of guilty in a criminal
.'
I c
a entitled United States v. Markowitz, 85 Cr. 393
and respectfully refers the Court to the guilty
criminal information in United States v. Markowitz
contents thereof.
4. Denies the allegations of paragraph
lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the
as to the other defendants.
5. Denies the allegations of paragraph
lacks knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the
as to the other defendants.
l
Derivative Action Allegations
6. Lacks knowledge sufficient to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
20
.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
YORK PARTNERSHIP PRICE WATERHOUSE TMG FRANK OPINION TMG-II PAUL HEATING BOGUS BOGUS TRADES MRE NFORMATION BOGUS LOSSES LAS LOST WERM FULLY RET TRG-II SEME ACCOUNTANT KITE WATERHOUSE FIDM EONDUCT LEMORANDM CIAL STATEMENT INTENT AID MARKOWITZ CONNECTION NENTS |
llSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,----,,,,,,,,,,,,,,x
TMG-II, a New York limited partner- :
ship, and BREAKWATER ASSOCIATES, a
New York partnership, CARNEVALE 79 :
iASSOCIATES, a New York partnership,
~111 INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES, a New : Index NO.
iYork partnership, ALEXANDER H.
ICOHEN, DAM ASSOCIATES, a New York :
ipartnership, DAM III ASSOCIATES, a
`New York partnership, RICHARD E. :
FARRELL, MAURICE GOODMAN, PAUL
GROSZ, DEBORAH GROSZ, KEW GARDENS :
PLUMBING h HEATING CORP., FRANK
LANGELLA, BERNARD MINKOFF, BRETT M. :
NORDGREN, PAUL S. PARISER, ALAN
RIEVHAN, AARON N. SIEGEL, CARL :
SPIELVOGEL, SQUARE FOUR ASSOCIATES,
a New York partnership, DONALD :
STROCHAK, GABRIEL SUMNER, TREASURE-
VALE 81 ASSOCIATES, a New York :
partnership, and WILLIAM WOLFF,
on their own behalves and as limited :
partners suing on behalf of TMG
ASSOCIATES, a New York partnership, :
and CHARLES H. GABRIEL, CHARLES H. AMENDED
KELLERT, MNKENAU, KOVNER & :
BICKFORD, a New York partnership,
JAMES H, HARONEY, JR., SEAWALL :
ASSOCIATES, a New York partnership,
LEON SILVERMAN, and TREASUREVALE :
ASSOCIATES, a New York partnership,
:
Plaintiffs, :
- againrt -
,_ :
PRICE WATEREOUSE C CO., FRANK,
STEFANOU L COMPANY, FRANK & COMPANY, :
P.C., PETER STEPANOU, GOLDSCHMDT,
FREDERICKS, KURZMAN 6 OSHATZ, and :
MICHAEL P. OSHATZ, Defendants. ':
Plaintiffs, by their
IS and for their complaint against
SNIPPETS:
|
|
21
.
AFF SUP PLF CRSSMOT CMPEL
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SUPREME COURT COUNTY ABOVM THM STEFANOU DEFENDANTS EDWARD MARKOWITZ TXG TMG-II TAX RTHE SWORN |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
l COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-----31----1--------------
TMG-II, et al.
. 9742/87
l -against-
IN SUE)PORT
LAINTIFFS' qROSS-
PRICE WATERHOUSE & co., et al.
TO COMPE&
RS TO
TORIES AND
OPPOSITION TO
a ----"--"-""""`""""""`-"-------------------~-x
N TO DISMISS
STATE OF NEW YORK
; ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
a
DAVID M. HASHMALL, being
oses and says:
1. I am an attorney
before the
l Courts of the State of
Lippman & Hashmall,
in the above-
captioned action. I
in support of
a plaintiffs@ motion for an
endants Frank,
Stefanou 6 co., Frank
eter Stefanou
(collectively, the
to respond to
a plaintiff's First Set
(A copy of
plaintiffs' First Set of
the Stefanou
DlfhIdantS i8 annexed hereto
affidavit
l is also submitted in opposition
fanou
SNIPPETS:
|
|
22
.
TESTIMONY
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS MMR MESSINGER WORKSHEETS COUNTY SUSPICION OSHATZ TRADING TAX FATCO FIRM FISHKIND TRANSACTIONS INCOME PHONY FRAUD SHAM SUPREME COURT MELITTA SZABO DULY SWORN DEPOSES |
gt i2-30 2 Stefanou - redirect
confirmed.
Q. Other than Markowitz, during the
through the early part of 1983, did you look to anyone else'
for reassurance that transactions were legitimate?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who did you look to?
A. Michael Oshatz and Len Messinger.
8 Q. When did your suspicions about either
9 Markowitz or MMR first arise?
10 A. Well, as I testified previously,
11 significant issue involving MMR was the $65
12 believe it was in September of 1980 between MMR and
13 Group.
14 .Q* And at that time what was the nature
15 suspicion?
16 A. Well, it was unusual for me at that time
17 any dealings with a foreign corporation and the
18 guess within two or three months of working
19 engagement, we would get or we would receive
20 monthly brokerage account statements, for
21 other entities that the Markowitz entities
.
22 Merrill Lynch and Paine Webber and a number of others,
23 this particular broker, MMR, only provided a
SNIPPETS:
|
|
24
.
DEF ANS TO PLF 1ST INTER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT YORK LAW MOTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBITS MEMORANDUM SUPPORT THEREOF REASON GRANT HEREBY AGENTS EMPLOYEES REPRESENTATIVES ATTORNEYS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT COUNSEL MANDATORY LEGAL PROCESS CLERK LISTS DISCLOSE THIRD-PARTY TAX THIRD-PARTY TAX INFORMATION LITIGATION PURSUANT DISTR JUDGE |
--
-
.-
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
1
TMG-II, et al.,
;
Plaintiffs,
;
- against -
i
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO., et al.,
i
Defendants. 1
1
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS, FRANK, STEFANOU & CO.,
FRANK & CO., P.C., AND PETER
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
The answering parties submit
to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories.
INTERROGATORY
Describe the contents, and produce a
insurance agreement under which any person or entity
n
an insurance business may be liable (i)
a judgment which may be entered in this action
Stefanou Defendants, or (ii) to indemnify
Stefanou defendants for payments made to
Please provide with the response
description and copies of any agreements,
LAW
OrrICES amending or supplementing the terms of any insurance
I. .*
SNIPPETS:
|
|
25
.
APPELLATE ORDER
|
