documents are only attributable to NHII. However, as the Court determined in the March 2014 Decision, courts have consistently held individuals responsible for statements made in partnership documents where those individuals are closely affiliated with the affairs of the partnership or its management and the individual aids in preparing the documents, delivering the documents, or otherwise causing the documents’ statements to be communicated. Sherwin Williams Co. v. Grasso (In re Grasso), 497 B.R. 434, 442-443 (Bankr.W.D.Penn.2013) (finding the debtor to be an “insider” of the general partnership through analysis of 11 U.S.C. § 101(31); therefore, statements in partnership documents were attributable to the debtor); Park v. Moorad (In re Moorad), 132 B.R. 58, 62 (Bankr. N.D.Okla.1991) (<HOLDING>). This Court also concludes that Toby is
holding that it is not holding that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a belowguidelines sentence in part because it disagreed with the jurys finding that the defendant had the intent to defraud holding that even if a petition containing signatures for placement on the ballot was not a governmental record when it was falsified it became a governmental record after it was accepted by the party chairperson and the candidate relied on it to maintain his position on the ballot holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance holding that by causing the private placement memorandum to be prepared and circulating it with the intent others rely on it in making investment decisions debtordefendant became responsible for the veracity of its contents