Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
8
9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
..
r 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
r- ~
lJ..';
11
o~
(!~
12 FREDERICK S. WYLE, as Trustee in )
u~ Bankruptcy of HAMILTON TAFT & ) Case No. 950522
Z~
COMPANY, )
~ ~= 13
~ m.~ )
..o ~ .. 14 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
) SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
~ v. ) PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF
15
) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
16 KPMG PEAT MARWICK, a general )
partnership; KEITH L. VOIGTS; )
17 and DOES ONE through TWENTY, )
inclusive, )
18 )
Defendants. )
19 ----------------)
20
21 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiff, FREDERICK S. WYLE
22 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, KEITH L. VOIGTS
23 SET NUMBER: ONE (Special)
24 Keith L. Voigts ("VOIGTS") responds to Plaintiffs' First Set
7 proceeds.
18 or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that they are unduly
27 ARMSTRONG entities.
28 /11
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 2 -
7. These General Objections are expressly incorporated by
3 forth therein.
4
5 INTERROGATORIES
6 INTERROGATORY NO.1:
2 MARWICK.
4 INTERROGATORY NO.2:
7 which YOU base YOUR contention that VOIGTS was not acting as an
10 Not applicable.
~
1.L
11
0
a: INTERROGATORY NO.3:
u 12
z
Ul
w <{ 13 Describe in detail the substance of any advice or other
u
;;: m
l&.
0 .-'
14 services (including, without limitation, review, analysis,
~
~
15 investigation and discussion) provided by YOU to HAMILTON TAFT,
2: ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG
w 16
0
-(J) 17 concerning permissible uses of funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT
8 funds derived from HAMILTON TAFT tax deposits. PEAT HARWICK did
8 their attorney letter prepared for the March 31, 19B9 aUdit, in
9 which the attorneys stated that the use of HAMILTON TAFT funds
1( 14 INTERROGATORY NO.5:
19 funds.
10 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
l-
lL. responds as follows: During the course of professional services,
11
0
0:
U 12 VOIGTS was told that, based on review of the financial statements
Z
til
\oJ 4: 13 of HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies, funds were
U
~
m
IL
0 t(J 14 transferred between HAMILTON TAFT and ARMSTRONG's Texas companies.
~
15 VOIGTS' understanding was that the early investments -- like PIF,
I
w 16 weir Bros. and River City Fair -- were funded with HAMILTON TAFT
0
- 17 funds. with respect to those of the later investments of which
Ul
18 VOIGTS ultimately learned -- like the oil and gas leases, the
21 TAFT funds were used, but he assumed that HAMILTON TAFT funds were
22 used. VOIGTS was informed and believed that HAMILTON TAFT was
23 acting in accordance with the advice of its counsel and was making
26 such determinations.
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 7 -
INTERROGATORY NO.6:
6 ARMSTRONG.
15 that it did not pay its customers' taxes but that the use of funds
.
I was a business decision for HAMILTON TAFT to make. PEAT MARWICK
w 16
0
-
m 17 was told that HAMILTON TAFT's executives were aware of this advice
18 and that HAMILTON TAFT was making its own determinations as to how
20
21 INTERROGATORY NO.7:
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 9 -
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY N0. 7:
20 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
23
24 INTERROGATORY NO.8:
26 between January 1988 and the present for ARMSTRONG andlor any
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 10 -
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY ~O. 8:
21 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
28 1989.
3 1989.
6 1989.
8 statements.
20 coupon bonds.
22 meetings.
24 restructuring.
6 did some consulting work for companies with which ARMSTRONG was
-0
(/) 17 preparation of a business plan to establish a medical claims
23 reviewed sale documents, assisted with due diligence, and met with
7 INTERROGATORY NO.9:
26 III
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET ,OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 14 -
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
8 herein by reference.
15 ARMSTRONG.
~
18 herein by reference.
19
24 ARMSTRONG.
23 HAMILTON TAFT.
24
5
6 INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
7 Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
8 advice provided by YOU with respect to the purchase by or on
9 behalf of ARMSTRONG of the Double C Ranch in Tyler, Texas.
10 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
~
~
tl VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
o
~
u 12 overbroad anc burdensome and seeks information which is neither
z
~ ~ 13 relevant to the sUbject matter of this action nor reasonably
~
~
m
o ~ 14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
J
4
10 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
~
~
11 Objections, VOIGTS responds that he is not aware of any
0
rr 12 professional services provided to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
u
Z
m
w ~ 13 entities in which ARMSTRONG held an interest other than those
u
~ m
~
o .~
14 reflected in VOIGTS' response to Interrogatory No. 8 which VOIGTS
~
~
IS incorporates herein by reference. Specifically, VOIGTS is not
~
18 to Mohamed Hadid. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts related
20 TAFT's March 31, 1989 balance sheet, the balance sheet showed a
22 HAMILTON TAFT's June 30, 1989 balance sheet, the Hadid debt had
24 was reflected on the balance sheet. VOIGTS was told that Dresdner
26 III
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 20 -
INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
~
27 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
10 investment in an oil and gas lease and that the lease was expected
~
~ to yield significant profits. VOIGTS was told that the land had
I1
0
~
U 12 proven reserves which would pay back the acquisition and
z
~ 13 extraction costs quickly and that the lease was acquired cheaply
m
~'~ 14 because the prior owner could not afford to pay for water
15 flooding. Later, VOIGTS was told that water flooding was not
,
! necessary, and that the property was producing oil. VOIGTS
w 16
0
- 17 believes that around the time the transaction was consummated, he
m
18 provided some advice relating to tax andlor accounting
20 advice.
21
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 22 -
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
~
z other action on the ground that it is unduly burdensome and
~ ~ 13
u
~
m
~
o .~ 14 oppressive. VOIGTS further objects that responding to this
~
~
IS interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a
,
~ compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from PEAT HARWICK's
w 16
0
- 17 documents, including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were
m
18 previously produced to plaintiff. The burden of compiling the
20 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
9
10 INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
~
~
11 Describe in detail ~ll facts known to YOU and any services or
0
~
U 12 advice provided by YOU with respect to the acquisition of real
z
~ 13 estate projects from the Resolution Trust Corporation by ARMSTRONG
m
-~ 14 or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
I
w 16 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
0
-
m 17 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
18 coupon bond" deal. Nor was VOIGTS aware of any other facts
21
22 INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
10
~
~
II INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
a
~
u 12 Describe in detail all facts known to YOU and any services or
Z
~
w ~ 13 advice provided by YOU with respect to loans to, investment in or
~
~
m
~
o .~ 14 acquisition of River city Fair in San Antonio, Texas by ARMSTRONG
~
~
15 or any entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
!
w 16 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
0
- 17 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
m
18 overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
7 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
18 related to River City Fair, except: VOIGTS was told that, prior
25 city Fair. He knew that similar ventures had been very popular.
26 III
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 28 -
INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
25 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
4 VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
22 or controlled by ARMSTRONG.
24 ARMSTRONG.
25
22 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
6 VOIGTS. SUbject to, and without waiving, these and his General
22 controlled by ARMSTRONG.
24
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
23
24 INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 38 -
restructuring of the various entities owned or controlled by
2 ARMSTRONG.
22 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
7
8 INTERROGATORY NO. 29:
19 were used for operating expenses, but did not know to what extent.
20
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 42 -
company in Kansas City may have been considering a financing
18 feasible.
19
4 believed that ARMSTRONG drew salaries from HAMILTON TAFT and the
10
l-
lL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
0 11
cr Describe in detail any business opportunities or proposed
U 12
z
1/1
10I c{ 13 investments, acquisitions or other transactions that YOU found for
u [{)
...
?- .Ji 14 or presented to HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
- 15 controlled by ARMSTRONG.
t
i RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 33:
w 16
0
-
U) 17 VOIGTS objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
6 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
~
15 or other transactions that VOIGTS found for or presented to
I HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or controlled by
w 16
0
-
m 17 ARMSTRONG, except: VOIGTS introduced the Park Row Shopping Center
19 this lawsuit, had Remington pursued the deal, VOIGTS did not stand
26 //1
27 //1
28 /11
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 47 -
INTERROGATORY NO. 34:
2 Describe in detail any services or advice (including, without
3 limitation, accounting advice) provided by YOU with respect to the
26 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 50 -
- --- .... __ ..-.. -- ~ ... ~. _ .. .,..
27 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
8 repayment of its debt to Hamilton Taft & Company, and its review
9 report so reflects.
10
~
~ INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
11
0
~
U lZ state all facts regarding YOUR engagement to perform an
z
w ~
~
13 acquisition audit of HAMILTON TAFT, including, without limitation,
u
,
~ m
0 ~
14 the identities of all persons who worked on the engagement, all
~
~
15 communications regarding the nature and extent of the services to
~
~
w 16 be performed, the uses to which the audit report was to be put,
0
-m 17 and the persons to whom the audit report or the contents thereof
9 to, and without waiving, these and his General objections, VOIGTS
~
~ ~ 15 assistant, and Lisa Rego, staff assistant. The engagement letter,
L~
Wi 16 bates stamped PM006629-32, defines the intended scope of the
o
in 17 engagement. The audit report, bates stamped PM007349-7357,
24
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 38:
3 audit reports were to be put, and the persons to whom the audit
5 actually communicated.
~ oJ
15 interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
~-
wr 16 summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
0
-
(J) 17 ground that it is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS
24 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
5 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
10 ended December· 31, 1990. Rather, because the 1989 audit had not
I-
It.. - been completed, at some point, PEAT MARWICK and the company
O~ 11
((
U~ 12 discussed completing an audit for a two-year period instead of a
z
~~ 13 one-year period. That audit was never completed. PEAT HARWICK's
m::' 0
or
.-1( ~ 14 reasons for not completing that audit are summarized in PEAT
<{ J
15 HARWICK's workpapers including, but not limited to, those bates
~-
Wi 16 stamped PM001424. PEAT HARWICK could not complete its audit
0
-Ul 17 examination of the financial statements of HAMILTON TAFT as of and
18 for the years ended December 31, 1989 and December 31, 1990
19 because Hamilton Taft & Company did not supply PEAT MARWICK with
23 MARWICK directly that it did not wish to proceed with the audit.
24
25 INTERROGATORY NO. 40:
-0
(J) 17 including from PEAT MARWICK's workpapers which were previously
20 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
27 III
28 III
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 58 -
recall seeing any such brochure. See also VOIGTS' Response to
26 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
-
4
~-
wi: 16 to comment on accounting issues should they arise. VOIGTS does
0
- 17 not recall making any such comments. VOIGTS is aware of no other
lJJ
18 involvement with the Advisory Board, except: VOIGTS recalls some
24 Joe Sullivan.
25
olL. ~- 11 from PEAT MARWICK and VOIGTS declines to give any such
[r
U~ 12 information. VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the
Z
~ ~: 13 extent it seeks information in the possession or control of
~ m
~ .1( ~ 14 individuals or entities other than VOIGTS on the grounds that it
~ Cl
•
or
<t ~ 15 is unduly burdensome and oppressive. VOIGTS further objects to
I -
Wi 16 this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require VOIGTS to
o
U; 17 summarize the discovery to date in this or any other action on the
25 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
27 and the other entities owned by ARMSTRONG, not VOIGTS. All fees
28 for PEAT MARWICK'S services were paid to PEAT MARWICK, not VOIGTS.
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
FIRST SET OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 62 -
~7
7
8 II INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
9 II Identify (inclUding, without limitation, name, current
10 II address and telephone nUmber, position with PEAT HARWICK and
t-
LL location of PEAT MARWICK office where employed) each employee,
11
o
a:: partner and agent of PEAT MARWICK who worked on any PEAT MARWICK
u 12
z
~ <{ 13 engagement with HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or any entities owned or
..~ m
IL
o,....-l( 14 controlled by ARMSTRONG.
(
15 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 44:
<{
~
w 16 VOIGTS objects to this i~terrogatory as vague, ambiguous,
o overbroad and burdensome and seeks information which is neither
(fJ 17
18 11 relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
19 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
2011 VOIGTS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
21 II seeks information in the possession or control of individuals or
5 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
8 reference, lists all the persons who may have participated in any
9 engagement.
10
I-
l1.. ~
O~ 11 INTERROGATORY NO. 45:
a: As to each individual identified in YOUR response to
U~ 12
z
<i~ 13 Interrogatory No. 44, describe with particularity the work
m~0
-~JI 0~ 14 performed or services provided for HAMILTON TAFT, ARMSTRONG or
:<
Ci
«~ 15 entities owned or controlled by ARMSTRONG, including the nature of
L ~
wi: 16 the engagement in connection with which such work or services were
-0
U) 17 performed.
8 to, and without waiving, these and his General Objections, VOIGTS
4 VOIGTS. Subject to, and without waiving, these and his General
... _ 10
lL -
o~ 11 Dated: November 5l, 1994 Respectfully submitted,
lr
U ~ 12 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT
Z
A Partnership Including
~ ~:: 13 Professional Corporations
~ m
~ ,.J( ; 14
c
~ ~ 15
L _
By:
wi: 16 DANIEL E'. KRITZ V
a Attorneys for Defendant
lO 17
KEITH L. VOIGTS
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT KEITH L. VOIGTS'
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
~'':::':-'':' ~BT OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES - 67 -
!I
- '"
I'
VERIFICATION
(" - 2
IS
~
w 16 KEITH L. VOIGTS
o
If) 17
DEK:sa/mp:1992/P/94.0262
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. .- <..~
.
~~
2.7
.f"
28
t3d-4
rCJJ}L (0 q
II