United States' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Plaintiffs'

the principals want to pursue the opportunity as partners. Thisis exactly what happened in this case, according to statementsmade in deposition by the principals.(E. g., MontgomeryDeposition at 516:7-517:9.) Three months is not an unusuallyshort interval.The second fact relied on by Dubinsky is that "Montgomery'sinvolvement as a member of (Bemont) clearly served a substantialtax purpose under Beal' s tax strategy."(Dubinsky at 23.) Thisis incorrect. There was no tax reason why Beal needed to haveMontgomery as a partner given the participation of Beneficial inBPB.The third fact relied on by Dubinsky is the $150,000 buyoutpayment paid to Montgomery. Dubinsky argues that "it appearsthat the additional $150,000 so-called 'cash buyout premium'paid to Montgomery upon his redemption was nothing more than anadditional fee for his role in the pre-planned tax scheme."(Dubinsky at 24.)Documentary evidence indicates that Dubinskywas paid an amount consistent with the fair value of hisinterest.(See Written Consent in Lieu of Meeting of the SoleManager of BM Investments, L.L.C., SOL6BM00058-59.) Montgomerystated at his deposition that the $150,000 amount was thebyproduct of an arm's-length negotiation between Montgomery andBeal, rather than a pre-planned fee as Dubinsky claims.- 13 -