DATELINE: April 1, 2009, Chicago
We can’t wait to attend a game at the new Yankee Stadium. Our nephew owns an apartment just three blocks from the stadium, meaning that we can go a game together, and then spend the night in his guestroom. As part of an agreement that paved the way for the new stadium, the Yankees agreed to contribute $800,000 per year in cash and $450,000 of in-kind items like game tickets to a charity that would benefit members of the community.
According to Fernanda Santos of the N.Y. Times, a lawyer hired by the Yankees has filed a lawsuit alleging what amounts to breach of fiduciary duty against the chairman of New Yankee Stadium Community Benefits Fund, the charity established by the Yankees. Lawyer Who Has Hired by Yankees Sues the Team's Bronx Community Charity (Mar. 31, 2009). If the allegations are true, this looks to us like...
|
The Desktop Guide is Quickly Becoming the Must Have Guide for Nonprofit Executives
Some of our readers have followed the link to the Amazon.com Web site, but apparently have not bought the Guide. If they were turned off by the price, they should reconsider. One prominent attorney in the exempt organization field grabbed a review copy of the Guide and couldn't put it down. She has instructed a number of her clients to buy it, pointing out to them that for less than 1/2 hour of her billable time, they receive a lesson (and resource) that tells it like she would like it told. If you are starting a new charity, the Guide could save you thousands of dollars in legal fees by teaching you how to better utilize your legal counsel and framing the issues so you don't spin your wheels at $400 an hour. |
an open and shut case. The lawyer, Michael Drezin, alleges that the chairman of the board deposited $800,000 of the charity’s money in a non-interest bearing account at a bank that the chairman co-founded and continues to work for. It is unclear whether the chairman still has an ownership interest in the bank.
Drezin told the Times, “In my opinion, there’s absolutely no innocent explanation for this behavior.” The Times reports that the board chair hung up the reporter when asked for comment.
In the lawsuit, Drezin asks for the board chair’s resignation and $35,000 per year which Drezin alleges the Yankees gave to the charity’s board to compensate Drezin for his services.
Well we will be interested to see how this suit plays out. The facts are reminiscent of those in Stern v. Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School for Deaconesses and Missionaries, 381 F. Supp. 1003 (1974), which also involved non-interest bearing accounts. The remedy in that case was to require each director to read the court’s opinion. If the allegations turn out to be true, hopefully the New York court will require more than that.
Internal Revenue Service - Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, any advice (but none is intended) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any plan or arrangement addressed herein.
If you liked this post, please visit http://www.charitygovernance.com for a description of our training and consulting services. You will also want to acquire a copy of Jack Siegel's book, A Desktop Guide for Nonprofit Directors, Officers, and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good." Copyright 2009, Charity Governance Consulting LLC. All Rights Reserved. You may not copy any portion of this post to a computer "clipboard" for re-posting anywhere or e-mailing, or otherwise reproduce this post. If you want others to review this post, you may provide them with a link to this web blog. Any use of the material or ideas in this post by reporters or other publishers shall make reference to Jack Siegel, author of "A Guide for Non-Profit Directors, Officers and Advisors: Avoiding Trouble While Doing Good" and this web blog. For additional information call 773-325-2124
THE FOREGOING IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF LEGAL ADVICE IS REQUIRED, THE NONPROFIT OR OTHER PARTY IN QUESTION SHOULD SEEK THE ADVICE OF QUALIFIED LEGAL COUNSEL.