David Belin This is Me

Education

 Web References

1. 1. Franklin, Weinrib, Rudell & Vassallo, P.C. | Articles of Interest

   fwrv.wld.com/articles/artrud07 - [Cached]

   Published on: 4/22/2004   Last Visited: 3/16/2006

   In 1994, David Belin met Barry Weissler, who attempted to interest him in investing in the Play, which was designed as a star vehicle for the well-known Broadway star Tommy Tune.
   ...
   After Weissler had sent Belin certain promotional materials and financial projections, Belin asked Weissler what insurance coverage had been secured in the event that Tommy Tune was unable to perform.
   ...
   When Belin spoke with Weissler a further time, Weissler again called Belin's attention to the performance of his previous productions.
   ...
   In early March 1995, and in response to Belin's continuing concerns regarding his investment, Weissler again represented to Belin that there was $5.8 million of insurance on Tommy Tune.
   ...
   When asked by Belin how long Tommy Tune was committed to star in the show, Weissler answered that the performer had signed an eighteen month agreement.
   ...
   Based on Weissler's assurance that there was an insurance policy of $5.8 million in effect in the event of Tommy Tune's inability to perform and the commitment of Tommy Tune to star in the show, Belin invested $100,000 as a limited partner in the limited partnership relating to the production.
   ...
   Thereafter, Belin learned that only $3.5 million of insurance had been secured and that the insurers had denied liability.2
   ...
   The first issue discussed by the Court is whether the investment documents executed by Belin at the time of his investment in the limited partnership, which Weissler submitted in support of his motion, may be considered by the Court.
   ...
   The next issue addressed by the Court is whether Belin has adequately pleaded reasonable reliance. In this connection, under New York law, he must establish actual, direct reliance upon the oral representations made by Weissler regarding the insurance on Tommy Tune. The decision states that "a close study of Belin's complaint indicates that Weissler's oral representations may not have been the catalyst for Belin's investment."
   
   After examining the content of the conversations between Weissler and Belin, the Court concludes that the complaint casts doubt as to whether it was the insurance representation or the track record of profit made by investors in Weissler's previous productions that caused Belin to invest.
   ...
   Belin, by his own admission, is a sophisticated investor, having both J.D. and M.B.A. degrees and managing over $40 billion in assets as a trustee for Kemper Mutual Funds. He represented in the Suitability Questionnaire that he had "sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters so as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks associated with investing in the limited partnership." If, as he contends, he only was investing in the limited partnership based on Weissler's representations that Tommy Tune was insured for $5.8 million, he had an obligation to secure and review a copy of the insurance policy upon which his investment decision was allegedly premised.
   
   By proceeding to make an investment without asking for a copy of the policy, Belin willingly assumed the business risk that the amount of insurance coverage was as represented by Weissler.
   ...
   The Court indicates that even if Belin did not have ready access to the relevant information, his reliance would not have been reasonable because, as a sophisticated investor, he should have confirmed that the insurance existed and not relied on Weissler's oral representations.
   
   When Belin invested in the limited partnership, he executed the Subscription Agreement, explicitly disclaiming reliance on oral representations. That document stated that he "has been provided an opportunity to obtain any additional information concerning the Offering, the Partnership and all other information to the extent the Partnership or the General Partner possesses such information or could acquire it without unreasonable effort or expense; ... and has been given the opportunity to obtain such addition information necessary to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the Partnership Agreement or which has otherwise been provided in order for him to evaluate the merits and risks on an investment in the Partnership...."
   
   Further, the Partnership Agreement signed by Belin specifically provided that it incorporates the entire agreement among the parties. As noted in Lazard Frere, "where a party specifically disclaims reliance upon a representation in a contract, it cannot later assert that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the contract by the very representation it has disclaimed reliance upon."
   
   The Court rejects Belin's assertion that the disclaimer and merger clauses are ineffective to vitiate his fraud claim because they are general, rather than specific, and broad, general disclaimers do not negate the element of reliance. Belin completed a detailed Suitability Questionnaire and, more importantly, specifically disclaimed reliance on any oral representations and expressly represented that he had been given an opportunity, not only to obtain whatever additional information he required, but also to verify the accuracy of that information. He executed these disclaimers subsequent to the time Weissler orally represented to him the amount of the insurance coverage.

2. 2. FWRV Law Firm: Articles of Interest - Entertainment, Matrimonial, and Corporate/SEC Law

   www.fwrv.com/news/article.cfm? - [Cached]

   Published on: 7/14/1998   Last Visited: 12/31/2007

   In 1994, David Belin met Barry Weissler, who attempted to interest him in investing in the Play, which was designed as a star vehicle for the well-known Broadway star Tommy Tune.
   ...
   After Weissler had sent Belin certain promotional materials and financial projections, Belin asked Weissler what insurance coverage had been secured in the event that Tommy Tune was unable to perform.
   ...
   When Belin spoke with Weissler a further time, Weissler again called Belin's attention to the performance of his previous productions.
   ...
   In early March 1995, and in response to Belin's continuing concerns regarding his investment, Weissler again represented to Belin that there was $5.8 million of insurance on Tommy Tune.
   ...
   When asked by Belin how long Tommy Tune was committed to star in the show, Weissler answered that the performer had signed an eighteen month agreement.
   ...
   Based on Weissler's assurance that there was an insurance policy of $5.8 million in effect in the event of Tommy Tune's inability to perform and the commitment of Tommy Tune to star in the show, Belin invested $100,000 as a limited partner in the limited partnership relating to the production.
   ...
   Thereafter, Belin learned that only $3.5 million of insurance had been secured and that the insurers had denied liability.2
   ...
   The first issue discussed by the Court is whether the investment documents executed by Belin at the time of his investment in the limited partnership, which Weissler submitted in support of his motion, may be considered by the Court.
   ...
   The next issue addressed by the Court is whether Belin has adequately pleaded reasonable reliance. In this connection, under New York law, he must establish actual, direct reliance upon the oral representations made by Weissler regarding the insurance on Tommy Tune. The decision states that "a close study of Belin's complaint indicates that Weissler's oral representations may not have been the catalyst for Belin's investment."
   
   After examining the content of the conversations between Weissler and Belin, the Court concludes that the complaint casts doubt as to whether it was the insurance representation or the track record of profit made by investors in Weissler's previous productions that caused Belin to invest.
   ...
   Belin, by his own admission, is a sophisticated investor, having both J.D. and M.B.A. degrees and managing over $40 billion in assets as a trustee for Kemper Mutual Funds. He represented in the Suitability Questionnaire that he had "sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters so as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks associated with investing in the limited partnership." If, as he contends, he only was investing in the limited partnership based on Weissler's representations that Tommy Tune was insured for $5.8 million, he had an obligation to secure and review a copy of the insurance policy upon which his investment decision was allegedly premised.
   
   By proceeding to make an investment without asking for a copy of the policy, Belin willingly assumed the business risk that the amount of insurance coverage was as represented by Weissler.
   ...
   The Court indicates that even if Belin did not have ready access to the relevant information, his reliance would not have been reasonable because, as a sophisticated investor, he should have confirmed that the insurance existed and not relied on Weissler's oral representations.
   
   When Belin invested in the limited partnership, he executed the Subscription Agreement, explicitly disclaiming reliance on oral representations. That document stated that he "has been provided an opportunity to obtain any additional information concerning the Offering, the Partnership and all other information to the extent the Partnership or the General Partner possesses such information or could acquire it without unreasonable effort or expense; ... and has been given the opportunity to obtain such addition information necessary to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the Partnership Agreement or which has otherwise been provided in order for him to evaluate the merits and risks on an investment in the Partnership...."
   
   Further, the Partnership Agreement signed by Belin specifically provided that it incorporates the entire agreement among the parties. As noted in Lazard Frere, "where a party specifically disclaims reliance upon a representation in a contract, it cannot later assert that it was fraudulently induced to enter into the contract by the very representation it has disclaimed reliance upon."
   
   The Court rejects Belin's assertion that the disclaimer and merger clauses are ineffective to vitiate his fraud claim because they are general, rather than specific, and broad, general disclaimers do not negate the element of reliance. Belin completed a detailed Suitability Questionnaire and, more importantly, specifically disclaimed reliance on any oral representations and expressly represented that he had been given an opportunity, not only to obtain whatever additional information he required, but also to verify the accuracy of that information. He executed these disclaimers subsequent to the time Weissler orally represented to him the amount of the insurance coverage.