White Collar Defense and Compliance : New Jersey White Collar Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Fox Rothschild Law Firm : Criminal Defense, Insider Trading, RICO, Consumer Fraud : New Jersey, New York City

Michael J. Kline writes:

This blog series has often used Forms 990 and Forms 990-PF filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) by public charities and private foundations, respectively, which have been victims in the Ponzi schemes of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) and others, to highlight areas where improvement in compliance may be undertaken. For example, a previous blog entry pointed out that there is evidence that some charities may be exercising greater caution in their gift acceptance policies as a result of having suffered from involvement with Ponzi schemes.  

This posting will address the question of what officer should sign the Form 990 in light of the requirements of the IRS contained in the Form 990 itself and the IRS Instructions for Form 990 (the “IRS Instructions”). The Form 990 Signature Block at the bottom of the first page states the following, which is substantially the same language as is present in income tax returns for individuals and business corporations:

Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct and complete.

The IRS Instructions add the following further requirements as to the Signature Block: 

The return must be signed by the current president, vice president, treasurer, assistant treasurer, chief accounting officer, or other corporate officer (such as tax officer) who is authorized to sign as of the date this return is filed [Emphasis supplied] . . . . The definition of "officer" for purposes of Part II is different from the definition of officer (see Glossary) used to determine which officers to report elsewhere on the form and schedules, and from the definition of principal officer for purposes of the Form 990 Heading (see Glossary).

This is a very serious standard and a high bar for the officer executing the Form 990 to achieve. As early as February 2010, this blog series recognized the diverse and somewhat perplexing nature of the individuals who signed Forms 990 on behalf of two charities that were victims of Madoff: Yeshiva University and Hadassah.   In the case of Yeshiva University, its Vice President and CFO, who was a compensated full-time employee, executed the Form 990. On the other hand, the National Treasurer of Hadassah, who sign its Form 990 contemporaneously with the Yeshiva filing, appeared to be an uncompensated volunteer and reflected less than 10 hours per week of time for Hadassah. 

Query: should a volunteer officer who devotes relatively little time to the charity be undertaking the responsibility to sign for a charity of the international scope of Hadassah? Would not the CFO or other full-time compensated officer of Hadassah be more appropriate for the task? (While the uncompensated National Treasurer of Hadassah again signed its 2011 Form 990, such Form 990 does indicate that she devotes 34.00 hours per week to Hadassah.)

Below are some concepts that charities and their officers should consider in determining who should sign their 2012 Forms 990. Subject to the size and human and financial resources available to a charity, the officer who executes the Form 990 should be one who

1. can demonstrate active input and involvement in the Form 990 and financial statement preparation process;

2. has the skill and experience to evaluate personally the quality of the preparation process for both the financial statements and the governance, management, policies and disclosure portions of the Form 990;

3.  holds such a position that his/her input will be meaningfully received by the other internal and external preparers of the Form 990;

4. understands and is comfortable with the seriousness of signing the Form 990 on the basis that it is true, correct and complete and executed under penalty of perjury; and

5.  is authorized to sign. 

While I believe that item 5 has been rarely done on a formal basis by charities, the formal granting of authority to sign the Form 990 will assist the governing body and the executing officer in comprehending the gravity of the Form 990, its filing with the IRS and universal availability on the Internet.

(Michael J. Kline, the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

[To be continued in Installment 89]

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael J. Kline writes: 

On November 13, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor (the “DOL”) issued a press release entitled “US Labor Department Recovers Nearly $220 Million for Madoff Victims.” On the same day New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (the “NYAG”) issued a press release entitled “A.G. Schneiderman Obtains $210 Million Settlement With Ivy Asset Management In Connection With Madoff Ponzi Scheme.”  Both the DOL and the NYAG are to be congratulated and each press release refers to the other regulatory authority. However, it is not immediately clear that the press releases are addressing a single $220 million settlement with Ivy Asset Management (“Ivy”) and other defendants of a number of consolidated lawsuits in which the DOL and NYAG are principal plaintiffs. The settlement is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

An interesting statement in the NYAG press release is the following:

When added to future amounts Madoff investors anticipate receiving from the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding, today's settlement is expected to return all or nearly all the original investment to those defrauded by the Ponzi scheme in this case.

This statement should provide some measure of holiday comfort and joy to all Madoff victims who hold claims that have been allowed by Trustee Irving Picard in the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding. It should be especially satisfying to the members of the Wilpon/Katz/Mets/Sterling (collectively, “Wilpons”) consortium. As pointed out in Installment 85 of this blog series and many earlier Installments, the Wilpons’ timely and foresighted settlement with Picard may virtually absolve them of any out-of-pocket payments as a group to Picard in the Madoff proceeding.

One final observation on the Ivy matter. This blog series discussed in Installments 34 and 38 certain issues respecting Ivy that had surfaced in the summer of 2010 about the time that the NYAG and the DOL filed suit against Ivy. The interest in Ivy by this blog series earlier in 2010 had been triggered by the identification of Ivy as an investment adviser that appeared to have involved Howard Hughes Medical Institute (“HHMI”), in investing with Madoff. There has been no public information readily available to date as to the extent of the investment by HHMI with Madoff. Moreover, as discussed in Installment 29, it was clear that HHMI does not intend to provide voluntarily any light on the subject. Installment 29 did raise a question as to whether HHMI was required to provide such information in its Form 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service. 

Almost four years after Madoff was arrested, his massive Ponzi scheme still has unresolved and undisclosed issues.

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

 [To be continued in Installment 87]

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Installments 66 and 65 in this blog series were earlier postings of aspects of the effects and aftermath, three years after disclosure, of Hadassah’s unfortunate decades-long involvement with Bernard Madoff (“Madoff”).

This posting will utilize recent publicly-available consolidated financial statements and Forms 990 of Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc. and its related affiliated entities (collectively, “Hadassah”) to review the impact over the last several years of the Madoff scandal on the membership and dues and legal fees of Hadassah.

Membership and Dues

The following information on membership and dues is gleaned from the Hadassah Forms 990 for the respective indicated years:

The information above bears some further analysis. The short seven-month year ended 12/31/2008 resulted from a change in fiscal year by Hadassah to a calendar year. The disclosure of the Ponzi scheme of Madoff occurred December 11, 2008, so that almost all of the dues money had been received for 2008 by that time. Hadassah had a major increase in membership revenues in 2009 that perhaps was attributable, at least in part, to early sympathy that may have resulted from initial reports of millions of dollars in losses suffered by Hadassah in the Madoff scandal. Later in 2009 it surfaced that Hadassah had benefited in cashing out at least $77,000,000 in “fictitious profits” from Madoff.

Perhaps as a consequence of increased information about Hadassah’s involvement with Madoff made 2010 a relative disaster for Hadassah membership revenues as compared to the earlier years. It had such an impact that, as reported in at least one Hadassah publication in South Jersey to members in early 2012,

Hadassah had an amazing 2011 membership year with its “once in a lifetime” $100 deal for life memberships. Over 38,000 life memberships and associate enrollments were processed nationwide.

That membership drive may have yielded as much as $3,800,000 for 2011. However, it was clearly a one time event that was achieved by mortgaging potential future life and annual membership dues, as dues will no longer be generated from the 38,000 new life members. There may be an enduring positive benefit, however, of an increase in the total membership rolls and in volunteer enthusiasm through the 2011 life membership drive. The Hadassah web site quotes $212 as the cost of a life membership during 2012.

Finally, it is clear that Hadassah responded differently in the short fiscal year ended 12/31/2008 as compared to 2009 and 2010.

Legal fees

The following information on legal fees paid is reflected in the Hadassah Forms 990 for the respective indicated years:

Clearly, the costs of legal services for Hadassah were driven up substantially in 2009 and 2010 following the disclosure of the Madoff scandal. However, the legal fees had already started to subside in 2010, as Hadassah was moving toward its settlement with Picard that was completed in 2011.

In conclusion, the effects of the Madoff scandal on Hadassah and its mission have been materially adverse. It will take Hadassah some time for a complete recovery and reduce the effect to nothing more than a bad memory.

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

(To be continued in Installment 68)
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Installment 65 in this blog series was Part 1 of a review of the effects and aftermath, three years after disclosure, of Hadassah’s unfortunate decades-long involvement with Bernard Madoff (“Madoff”).

Several days after our posting of Part 1, ynetnews.com published a report from Calcalist (the “Calcalist Report”) about Hadassah Medical Organization (“HMO”), the Hadassah hospital in Israel that is supported and owned by Hadassah Medical Relief Association, Inc., which is the non-profit Hadassah affiliate that actually paid the $45,000,000 in cash settlement to Trustee Irving Picard in the Madoff bankruptcy, as reported in earlier Installments in this blog series. The Calcalist Report stated that

several of the [Hadassah] hospital's suppliers have been complaining that the center has yet to transfer payments worth tens and even hundreds of thousands of shekels, due weeks ago. Hadassah's debt to suppliers is said to amount to nearly NIS 10 million (about $2.65 million).

For its part, Hadassah was quoted by Calcalist as responding as follows:

[U]nlike other hospitals, Hadassah does not receive any budgeting from the government or the State health system. This is a temporary setback in a minor portion of the payments due to the fact that Hadassah has not received all of its due payments from various parties.

Those familiar with hospital finances in the United States and the delays in revenues from third party payers that can often exist, thereby causing adverse cash flow effects and the necessity to delay vendor payments, can appreciate the unfortunate plight of HMO. Nonetheless, the fact that HMO’s delay in payments is deemed newsworthy underscores the adversity that continues to beleaguer the Hadassah organization in the aftermath of Madoff. The Calcalist Report cannot serve to generate confidence among HMO patients, professionals, support staff, donors and vendors that Hadassah has successfully put the effects of the Madoff scandal to rest.
 

(Installment 67 will provide Part 3 of this Hadassah report.)

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Numerous Installments, including Installments 48 and 42, in this blog series about the Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) have discussed Hadassah, its unfortunate decades-long involvement with Madoff and the aftermath. The matters covered include Hadassah’s original potential “clawback” exposure of up to $77,000,000 or more; the payment in early 2011 by Hadassah of $45,000,000 (the “Payment”) in a final settlement (the “Settlement”) with Irving H. Picard, the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy, who thereby permitted Hadassah to keep $32,000,000 in “fictitious profits” from the Ponzi scheme; the limited public transparency by Hadassah of developments in the Madoff scandal, especially in its filings of Forms 990 with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and other matters.

With the recent passage of the third anniversary of the arrest of Bernard Madoff, it appears appropriate to review where Hadassah currently stands in light of the Settlement and the Payment, as reflected in publicly available documents. Last week we obtained from Hadassah copies of its Forms 990 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “2010 Forms 990”) that were recently filed with the IRS, as they are not yet available on GuideStar. Along with the 2010 Forms 990, we obtained from Hadassah its consolidated financial statements for 2010 as audited by KPMG (the “2010 Financial Statements”). Hadassah should be commended for its commitment to make available its annual audited consolidated financial statements upon request, as there is no legal obligation for it to do so.

The Settlement and Payment by Hadassah to Trustee Picard is reflected in the financial statements for 2010 in both the 2010 Forms 990 and the 2010 Financial Statements. The actual disbursement of the Payment was made by Hadassah Medical Relief Association, Inc., one of the affiliated Hadassah entities (“HMRA”) included in the 2010 Financial Statements, and did not occur until the first quarter of 2011. Nevertheless, in line with Hadassah’s history of minimal public reporting on the Madoff matter, which, to say the least, constituted a major watershed event in recent Hadassah history, Hadassah’s discussion of the Settlement and the Payment in the 2010 Financial Statements is terse and is even less descriptive in the 2010 Forms 990 filed with the IRS.

The following is “Footnote (14) - Subsequent Event” to the 2010 Financial Statements that describes the Settlement and the Payment:

In December 2008, Hadassah learned that it had been a victim of the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC (Madoff). Madoff has been placed in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee (the Trustee) has informed creditors that substantially all amounts recorded in accounts with Madoff, like those of Hadassah’s, were worthless. The Trustee’s responsibilities include the recovery of Madoff’s assets from any available sources. Under certain circumstances, the Trustee may be able to recover amounts from account holders who, like Hadassah, received direct or indirect distributions from Madoff within the six-year period prior to the date of the commencement of the bankruptcy case. Hadassah has communicated with representatives of the Trustee concerning its accounts with Madoff. On February 16, 2011, Hadassah and the Trustee reached a final nonappealable settlement in the amount of $45,000,000, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2010. The settlement payment was made to the Trustee in March 2011.

In contrast, the following is the disclosure of the Settlement and Payment in the 2010 Form 990 of HMRA (“Form 990 Disclosure”):

SETTLEMENT PAYMENT
FORM 990, PART IX, LINE 24A
PART IX, LINE 24 A "SETTLEMENT PAYMENT" IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000,000 WAS A PAYMENT MADE TO TRUSTEE OF THE MADOFF BANKRUPTCY ESTATE TO SETTLE ALLEGED CLAIMS OF THE ESTATE AGAINST HADASSAH PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

The Form 990 Disclosure does not give context or background to the $45,000,000 Payment as did Footnote (14) to the 2010 Financial Statements. The abbreviated Form 990 Disclosure does not seem to do justice to a sum which dwarfs the figures in the 2010 Financial Statements reflected for total 2010 Hadassah consolidated (i) program services expenses of $29,051,633 and (ii) fund-raising and management and general expenses of $25,956,921. The total shown in the 2010 Financial Statements for all Hadassah consolidated expenses for 2010, which excludes the Payment, was $55,008,554, only 22% higher than the Payment.

As discussed in Installment 42 of this series, the December 2008 Forms 990 of Hadassah (the “2008 Forms 990”), which reported a short-year seven-month period ended December 31, 2008 because of a fiscal year change to the calendar year, contained a detailed statement of the Madoff matter. The statement was similar to that contained in the 2008 audited consolidated financial statements. Ironically, however, the 2008 Forms 990 have never been posted on GuideStar to this point, although I have brought the fact to GuideStar’s attention in the past. While Hadassah is not responsible for the omission by GuideStar, the result is that none of the Forms 990 of Hadassah posted to date on GuideStar has any reference to the Madoff matter.

(Installment 66 will provide Part 2 of this Hadassah pulse report.)
 

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Installment 61 of this blog series on Madoff discussed the $5.2 million clawback lawsuit (the “JASA Lawsuit”) recently filed by Trustee Irving Picard against Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (“JASA”), reaffirming the perplexing and inconsistent manner, virtually to the point of arbitrariness and unfairness, with which Picard has handled charities that invested with Madoff.

This posting will focus on and discuss the disappointing lack of transparency evidenced by JASA in its failure to provide meaningful public disclosures of the magnitude of its investments with Madoff and its loss and exposure to risk, either in media releases or in filings of Forms 990 with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). In response to the recent filing of the JASA Lawsuit, David Warren, President of the JASA Board of Trustees did post a statement on the JASA web site stating that “JASA will vigorously defend its position.” It would appear that no other prior postings were made on the JASA Web site regarding the impact of the Madoff scandal.

This blog series has previously examined the manner in which other charities, such as Hadassah, Yeshiva University, American Jewish Congress and the Lautenberg Foundation, have handled public disclosure in the aftermath of their investing with Madoff. The purpose of this post is to provide a similar analysis for JASA.

Virtually the only reference to the JASA investment with Madoff prior to the JASA Lawsuit that can be located on the Internet is on page 66 of the original 162-page alphabetical list of the thousands of Madoff customers that was first published in February 2009. Even in that listing the name of JASA was not that obvious, as it was not given in full but was truncated to “JEWISH ASSOCIATION FOR.”

The most perplexing area, however, where JASA has been silent on the effects of the Madoff scandal is with respect to its filings of Forms 990 with the IRS. Since the Madoff scandal came to light in December 2008, JASA has filed Forms 990 for three fiscal years that are available on GuideStar:

(1) the Form 990 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, dated February 2, 2009 (the “2007 Form 990”);
(2) the Form 990 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, dated August 25, 2009 (the “2008 Form 990”); and
(3) the Form 990 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, dated February 15, 2011 (the “2009 Form 990”).

JASA has had three opportunities so far to provide meaningful explanatory disclosures in Forms 990 as to the effects of its investments with Madoff and has chosen not to do so. A review of material differences in the financial statements (the “Differences”) as reported in the 2007 Form 990 and the 2008 Form 990 as to the single fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (“Fiscal 2008”) emphasizes the need for explanatory notes. Each of the unexplained Differences listed below would be consistent with write-downs by JASA, effective as of June 30, 2008, that related to losses incurred as a result of the Madoff scandal. (There were several reclassifications of items in the financial statements for Fiscal 2008, the interpretation of which would also be aided by explanatory notes.)

The Differences include the following:

1. The 2007 Form 990 reflects a net gain from investment transactions during Fiscal 2008 of $586,579, while the 2008 Form 990 reflects an investment loss for the same Fiscal 2008 of $491,559, for a total reduction of $1,078,138.

2. The 2007 Form 990 reflects “investments – publicly-traded securities” of $7,194,170 as of June 30, 2008, while the 2008 Form 990 reflects “investments – publicly-traded securities” of $3,209,730 as of June 30, 2008, for a total reduction of $3,984,440.

3. The 2007 Form 990 reflects total assets of $34,020,186 as of June 30, 2008, while the 2008 Form 990 reflects total assets of $30,013,294 as of June 30, 2008, for a total reduction of $4,006,892.

4. The 2007 Form 990 reflects net assets after liabilities of $16,564,650 as of June 30, 2008, while the 2008 Form 990 reflects net assets after liabilities of $12,557,758 as of June 30, 2008, for a total reduction of $4,006,892.

Additionally, the absence of any information in the 2008 Form 990 regarding losses by JASA with Madoff is surprising in light of the following question under “Government, Management and Disclosure” on Line 5 for an answer of “Yes” or “No” by the organization:

“Did the organization become aware during the year of a material diversion of the organization’s assets?”

In the 2008 Form 990, covering Fiscal 2008, Line 5 was answered “No” by JASA. A comprehensive discussion of the IRS instructions and related issues regarding the question on Line 5 is contained in Installment 29. In summary it is disappointing that JASA has not been more forthcoming and transparent with its donors in its public statements and IRS filings as to its involvement and losses in the Madoff scandal. As stated in earlier Installments respecting other charities, JASA would be far better served to make prompt, visible, clear and consistent disclosures and explanations to justify the faith of its supporters and regain the confidence of its donors who faithfully fund its historic mission.

[To be continued in Installment 63]
 

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A continuing theme of this blog series on Madoff has been the perplexing and inconsistent manner, virtually to the point of arbitrariness and unfairness, with which Trustee Irving Picard has handled charities that invested with Madoff.  Installment 60 in this series had only been posted for a few hours when Picard again reaffirmed his erratic behavior in this area. This time, however, Picard may have other purposes for his actions as well.

On October 14, 2011, Picard filed a lawsuit (Picard v. Jewish Association, 11-ap-02773, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) (the “JASA Lawsuit”) against Jewish Association for Services for the Aged (“JASA”) to recover $5.2 million in “fictitious profits” allegedly withdrawn by JASA during the Madoff scam for a six year period prior to the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding. Founded in 1968, the nonsectarian mission of JASA is to sustain and enrich the lives of the aging in the New York metropolitan area so that they can remain in their homes and communities with dignity and autonomy.

The JASA Lawsuit is in stark contrast to the continuous and relentless efforts of Picard to recover both alleged fictitious profits and principal distributed to the charitable private foundations of the Wilpon/Katz families, the owners of the New York Mets. Moreover, absent other purposes, the JASA Lawsuit is in inexplicable contrast to the settlement that Picard made with Hadassah in March 2011 to allow Hadassah to keep permanently $32 million of a stated $77 million of fictitious profits that it received from Madoff, as described in Installment 48 and earlier Installments of this blog series,

Installment 47 reported that the Forms 990 for 2009 of Hadassah posted on GuideStar showed total unrestricted consolidated net assets for Hadassah of almost $653,000,000 and more than $1,000,000,000 in total net assets as of December 31, 2009. Yet Picard allowed Hadassah to keep $32 million of Madoff fictitious profits. Picard’s diverging treatment for JASA is evidenced by its Form 990 (the “JASA Form 990”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 (“Fiscal 2010”) that reflects net assets of $8,856,783. A successful clawback from JASA by Picard of $5.2 million, plus the costs of the litigation to JASA, would eliminate 60% or more of its net assets as of June 30, 2010, clearly a crushing or even death blow to its mission.

In Installment 45 and Installment 17 of this series, Diana B. Henriques, author of an acclaimed book on Madoff, was quoted as having written on May 28, 2009 in The New York Times:

There is the widespread fear among some — unfounded, Picard says — that he will sue struggling charities or people of limited means for money they withdrew in the past but no longer have.

It is clear that in the case of JASA, the fear was not at all unfounded.

A closer look at the circumstances of the JASA matter reveals that Picard appears to be using the JASA Lawsuit for several potential purposes:

1. Commencing a new case against a venerable, visible and vulnerable charitable defendant to counteract or overturn the ruling issued by Judge Jed S. Rakoff in the Wilpon/Katz/Mets case that limited to two years (rather than the six years that Picard is seeking in the JASA Lawsuit and generally) the period for recovery of fictitious profits in the Madoff case. There are many potential defendants other than JASA against whom Picard could have brought such a lawsuit.

2. Placing a new type of external pressure on, and discomfiture for, Saul B. Katz, one of the owners of the Mets, who is a long-time major donor to, and, according to the JASA Form 990, a JASA Board member and Chair of its Executive Committee. The Form 990-PF for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 of the Saul and Iris Katz Family Foundation that is posted on GuideStar reveals contributions totaling $75,000 to JASA that year, the fiscal year immediately prior to the Madoff bankruptcy, and the last fiscal year for substantial contributions by the Foundation. The continuance of the Board relationship of Katz is confirmed by a June 2011 filing by JASA.

3. Subjecting JASA to heightened pressure to (a) distance itself from Katz in light of the costs and adverse media publicity of the JASA Lawsuit and (b) settle the JASA Lawsuit on terms acceptable to Picard that can damage materially the future viability of JASA.
Contrary to his earlier quoted statement, the new initiative by Picard against JASA endangers the financial stability of a struggling charity and its long time charitable mission. Shame on you, Mr. Picard.
 

[To be continued in Installment 62]

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and a co-author of this blog, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several Installments in this blog series about the long-running, global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) have discussed certain aspects of the scheme’s impact on the Wilpon Family, who are best known as the owners of the New York Mets. Installment 27 was the most recent to discuss the involvement of the Wilpon Family with Madoff. These Installments revolved around potential “clawback” exposure and the investments of the Judy and Fred Wilpon Family Foundation with Madoff.

Similarly, numerous other Installments, the most recent of which was Installment 44, 
have discussed Hadassah and its unfortunate involvements with Madoff. The matters covered include Hadassah’s potential “clawback” exposure, the questionable approach that Hadassah has used to disclose its investments with Madoff in Forms 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service, its proposed settlement with the Madoff Trustee and other matters.

Installment 17 of this series, published on October 26, 2009, was entitled “The Madoff Profit Game: Will the Mets End up Losers Off the Field While Charity Stakeholders Become Winners?” In Installment 17, Diana B. Henriques was quoted as having written on May 28, 2009 in The New York Times, “There is the widespread fear among some — unfounded, [Irving] Picard [the trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding] says — that he will sue struggling charities or people of limited means for money they withdrew in the past but no longer have.”

I stated the following in Installment 17:

Will Picard choose to pursue the Mets and the Wilpon family while passing on Hadassah? All charities, especially those providing social services like Hadassah, are “struggling” with materially reduced contributions because of the economy, increased demands by individuals who are unemployed and suffering financially, losses in endowment funds from the substantial market declines and increased regulatory activity.

While the position earlier stated by Picard as to charities may be humanitarian and emotionally appealing, there is little basis in the law for the disparity in treatment between charities and for-profit entities. This inequality of approach will more likely than not lead to protracted litigation and uncertainty in the Madoff matter.

Picard has now fulfilled my concerns beyond my expectations. Both the Wilpons and Hadassah have made news recently relating to how Picard is dealing with their status as “winners” under his formula for determining “Fictitious Profits” from Madoff that were subject to clawback. Most recently, on February 4, 2011, the Madoff bankruptcy court unsealed a 796-page Complaint, including Exhibits, against dozens of Defendants comprised of members of the Wilpon Family, their business associates and their respective families, business investments including the New York Mets, numerous real estate ventures and others (collectively, the “Wilpons” or the “Defendants”).

The Complaint revealed Picard’s determination to seek recovery from the Wilpons of not only $300,000,000 of identified transfers of Fictitious Profits but also additional hundreds of millions in principal transfers from the named Defendants. The Complaint describes the alleged existence of many “red flags” from which the Defendants knew or should have known over decades that Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme as the basis for recovery beyond Fictitious Profits.

Contrast this dramatic Complaint of Picard with the disclosure in early December 2010 from Nancy Falchuk, National President of Hadassah in a letter respecting the Madoff scandal. The letter stated that Hadassah was voluntarily paying $45,000,000 to settle, subject to approval of the bankruptcy court, a potential clawback claim for Fictitious Profits by Picard of as much as $97,000,000. Installment 42 of this series reported on the Falchuk letter and the fact that Hadassah had been investing with Madoff for a period of 20 years. Moreover, Hadassah had sophisticated investment advisers over the period of their Madoff investments.

It is difficult to rationalize the stark disparity in approach to these cases by Picard, other than the fact that Hadassah is a charity. In the case of the Wilpons, Picard is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars beyond the alleged Fictitious Profits. In the case of Hadassah he has agreed to let Hadassah retain $55,000,000 of Fictitious Profits at the expense of other Madoff victims. Both the Wilpons and Hadassah had been investing with Madoff for decades. This perplexing matter warrants further monitoring.

[To be continued in Installment 46]
 

(Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders, is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several Installments in this series about the long-running, global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”), the most recent of which was Installment 42, have discussed Hadassah and its unfortunate involvements with Madoff. The matters covered include Hadassah’s potential “clawback” exposure, the questionable approach that Hadassah has used to disclose its investments with Madoff in Forms 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), its proposed settlement with the Madoff Trustee and other matters.

On December 21, 2010, my spouse, who has been a life member of Hadassah for decades, received in the mail (the “Mailing”) from Nancy Falchuk, National President of Hadassah, the letter respecting the Madoff scandal that Installment 42 reported Hadassah had posted on its website (the “Posting”). The Mailing and the Posting (collectively, the “Falchuk Letter”) reported the $45 million Hadassah settlement in the Madoff matter (the “Settlement”).

The Mailing is identical to the Posting with one notable exception. In the Mailing the second sentence of the following paragraph is in bold type while it is not in bold type in the Posting:
“Hadassah’s fiscal discipline will allow it to pay this obligation from existing unrestricted funds. As always, Hadassah gifts will continue to be used for their intended purpose.”

The paragraph, and especially the bold sentence, suggest that the payment of the Settlement will be made from funds other than gifts to Hadassah. In my view, the suggestion is specious, almost to the point of being disingenuous. Hadassah’s “existing unrestricted funds” are the aggregation of gifts over many years from the generosity of past donors to the mission of Hadassah, together with the income earned on such gifts.

In addition, the Falchuk Letter does not shed light on the entire Settlement picture, as the costs of achieving the Settlement go far beyond the actual payment of the $45 million dollars to be made to the Madoff bankruptcy estate. Statement 4 of the Hadassah Form 990 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “2009 Form 990”), which has not yet been posted on GuideStar, reports the compensation of the five highest paid independent contractors that received $100,000. The 2009 Form 990 reveals that during 2009 Hadassah spent an aggregate of $2,753,922 on legal, accounting and consulting fees.

In contrast, Statement 4 of the Form 990 filed by Hadassah for its newly-designated fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “December 2008 Form 990”), revealed a total of $497,280 for legal and accounting fees for the seven month short period that was covered. (The Madoff scandal did not come to light until December 11, 2008.) The December 2008 Form 990 was the first year that the Form 990 required reporting of compensation for professional services of the type reported on Statement 4.

Even if the amount for professionals reported in the December 2008 Form 990 is doubled to $1 million to take into account a full year, the huge increase in 2009 in professional costs for Hadassah must be largely attributable to the legal, accounting, governance and public relations issues flowing from the Madoff matter.

One can only speculate as to the amount of professional fees that are likely to be reported by Hadassah for 2010, as the Falchuk Letter points out that the Settlement of the “clawback” issue involved “many months of negotiation.” This would certainly translate into substantial professional fees, again perhaps running into the millions of dollars. The professional fees, like the Settlement itself, will have to be paid, presumably from “existing unrestricted funds.” Hadassah should be forthcoming in revealing such costs of the Settlement to its donors.

Nonetheless, the professionals will have certainly earned their fees if, as noted in the Falchuk Letter, the required bankruptcy court approval is obtained by Hadassah. However, even that remains to be seen. For example, Thom Weidlich reported on January 6, 2011, in businessweek.com that a group of Madoff victims has already objected in the bankruptcy court to a settlement in which the estate of Jeffry Picower agreed to return $7.2 billion he allegedly made in the Madoff scandal. An objection to the Settlement could be filed in the Hadassah case as well.

Many, like my wife, who support or belong to this venerable charitable organization should be acutely disappointed that Hadassah has not been more accurate and forthright with its donors in its public statements and IRS filings. As stated in earlier Installments, I believe that Hadassah would be far better served to make prompt, visible, clear and consistent disclosures to regain the confidence of its loyal supporters who faithfully fund its historic mission.

[To be continued in Installment 45]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders.  Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Several Installments in this blog series about the long-running, global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) have discussed Hadassah and its unfortunate involvements with Madoff. The matters covered include Hadassah’s potential “clawback” exposure, the questionable approach that Hadassah has used to disclose its investments with Madoff in Forms 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and other matters.

Now, on the eve of the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations for Trustee Irving Picard to bring a lawsuit for clawback against Hadassah, in the midst of the holiday season for multiple faiths and the rush to generate end-of-year donations, Nancy Falchuk, President of Hadassah, published a letter on the Hadassah website in which she reported the following:

Hadassah was introduced to Bernard Madoff Securities in 1988 by a French donor, through a $7M gift. In addition to the gift, between 1988 and 1996, we deposited $33M in our accounts, and by April 2007 had withdrawn $137M. . . .

Like so many, for those who withdrew more than they had invested, we faced a “clawback.” After many months of negotiation, and as a direct result of good faith cooperation of Irving Picard, the Madoff Trustee, and his counsel, we arrived at an agreement, allowing us to continue our commitment to Israel. According to that agreement, subject to approval of the bankruptcy court, Hadassah will pay back $45M (emphasis added).

Therefore, Hadassah is voluntarily paying $45 million to settle a potential clawback claim by Mr. Picard of as much as $97 million. This follows two years of perplexing and conflicting public statements and filings by Hadassah. Originally, as reported in Installment 14 of this series, Hadassah reported publicly a loss from Madoff investments of $90 million. In contrast, more recently Installment 32 stated the following:

Installment 16, posted in September 2009, discussed the fact that it is alleged that Hadassah had received $40 million more in distributions from Madoff than it had invested with him. Additionally, an article by Diana B. Henriques in The New York Times was quoted in Installment 16 as having said, “[t]here is the widespread fear among some — unfounded, Mr. [Irving] Picard [the trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy proceeding] says — that he will sue struggling charities or people of limited means for money they withdrew in the past but no longer have.”

Apparently the fear has been anything but unfounded in the case of Hadassah.

The continuous shifting of public information made available by Hadassah has been exacerbated by the mystifying disclosure or lack thereof in the Hadassah Form 990 filings with the IRS. Installment 14 of this series reported that the Form 990 of Hadassah posted on GuideStar for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 (the “May 2008 Form 990”) was filed with the IRS in April 2009. This filing was well after the Madoff scandal broke on December 11, 2008, and after publication of reports in the media that Hadassah had withdrawn $130 million from its Madoff account. While the May 2008 Form 990 had no reference to the Madoff scandal, Installment 23 of this series reported that

the [Hadassah] financial statements audited by KPMG for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 (and the [newly-changed] fiscal year ended December 31, 2008), disclosed in a lengthy footnote that Hadassah wrote off, as of May 31, 2008, $88,725,362 of carrying value of Madoff-related investments.

Installment 23 went on to observe that the Form 990 filed by Hadassah for its newly-designated fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “December 2008 Form 990”) reported the following:
in a lengthy footnote (substantially similar to those in the financial statements audited by KPMG for the years ended May 31, 2008 and December 31, 2008) . . . Hadassah wrote off, as of May 31, 2008, $88,725,362 of carrying value of Madoff-related investments. . . . Hadassah management was unable to determine whether, or the extent to which, distributions to Hadassah from Madoff-related investments are recoverable by the trustee for Madoff.

(As an aside, for some unknown reason the December 2008 Form 990 has never been posted on GuideStar to this date, although I have brought the fact to GuideStar’s attention.)

I have this week obtained from Hadassah copies of its Form 990 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the “2009 Form 990”) that was recently filed with the IRS. Again, as was true of the 2008 Form 990, there is perplexingly no reference to the Madoff scandal or its potential impact on Hadassah.

Along with the 2009 Form 990, I obtained from Hadassah its audited consolidated financial statements for 2009 (the “2009 Financial Statements”). The date of the Independent Auditors’ Report of KPMG in the 2009 Financial Statements was November 29, 2010, just days before the letter from Ms. Falchuk was posted and a stipulation between Mr. Picard and Hadassah on December 9, 2010. entered in the Madoff bankruptcy case (the “Stipulation”) to toll the statute of limitations on potential clawback claims against Hadassah (Case Number: 08-01789-brl Document Number: 3327 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York). Presumably, the Stipulation was necessary to preserve Mr. Picard’s right to file suit against Hadassah should the settlement not become final.

In stark contrast to the 2009 Form 990, the second paragraph in Note 14 “Contingency” to the 2009 Financial Statements gives the following information as to the Madoff scandal:

Hadassah has begun settlement discussions with the Trustee [Mr. Picard] with respect to any claims that the bankruptcy estate believes it can assert against Hadassah for the recovery of any amounts previously received. The Trustee has not commenced litigation at this time. These discussions are in the early stage and the outcome is not reasonably estimable. If a settlement is reached in the present discussions, the amount of the settlement could be material to Hadassah. Hadassah intends to defend vigorously if no settlement is reached and the Trustee attempts to enforce the claims. If Hadassah is not successful in its defense of the claims, should they be made, the amounts recoverable by the Trustee could be material (emphasis added).

The limited disclosure in the 2009 Financial Statements is better than no disclosure at all in the 2009 Form 990, especially since the December 2008 Form 990 raised a question of uncertainty as to the effect of the Madoff scandal on Hadassah’s financial statements. I believe that, in light of the preliminary nature of the December 2008 Form 990 disclosure, Hadassah has a duty to make a full, fair and accurate clarification and update in the 2009 Form 990 and succeeding Form 990 filings. The lack of consistency between the 2009 Form 990 and the 2009 Financial Statements is also a concern.

Nonetheless, the limited disclosure in Note 14 to the 2009 Financial Statements is itself seriously deficient. The date of the auditors’ report of KPMG is November 29, 2010. In her letter, Ms. Falchuk wrote that the discussions that led to the $45 million settlement followed “many months of negotiation.” By November 29, 2010, the discussions were clearly no longer “in the early stage” and the outcome “not reasonably estimable” as stated in Note 14.

Many who support or even belong to this charitable organization must be acutely disappointed that Hadassah has not been more accurate and forthright with its donors in its public statements and IRS filings. During 2009 Hadassah received $32.3 million in contributions and bequests according to the 2009 Financial Statements. How would those donors have felt had they known that their contributions would in effect fund a $45 million settlement with Mr. Picard, and not promote the mission of Hadassah? How should 2010 donors feel about the settlement? I believe that Hadassah would be far better served to make visible, clear and consistent disclosures to regain the confidence of its loyal supporters who faithfully fund its historic mission.

[To be continued in Installment 43]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics.)
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the thirty-seventh in a series of Installments on this blog that is discussing issues that have arisen for charities in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal and other smaller Ponzi schemes. Installments 30 and 35 of this series discussed a Ponzi-scheme run by former Trustee Joseph S. Forte (“Forte”) of Malvern Preparatory School (“Malvern” or the “school”). Malvern, among other charities, had claimed that it was a victim of the Ponzi scheme, even though the school had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from Forte.

Installment 35 of this series discussed a September 17, 2010 article by Harold Brubaker, who has written several articles on the subject in The Philadelphia Inquirer.  The Brubaker article reported that Malvern had agreed in a consent order (the “Consent Order”) to return $700,000 received as contributions from Forte of the $900,000 originally sought by the court-appointed receiver.

On the same day as the Brubaker article, the President of Malvern and the Chairman of its Board of Trustees issued a joint statement about the Consent Order entitled “Resolution of Forte Ponzi Scheme Litigation” (the “Malvern Statement”). Included in the Malvern Statement was the avowal that Malvern Prep had no knowledge of Mr. Forte’s Ponzi scheme and accepted his donations under the assumption that he acquired them entirely from legitimate sources. In addition, although Malvern received charitable donations from Mr. Forte, it did not invest any monies with him.

One of the interesting aspects about the Consent Order and the Malvern Statement as to the return of donations by Malvern is the precedent that it may set, not only for other charities that may have innocently received contributions from Forte in the belief that they were from legal sources, but also for charities that received contributions in other Ponzi schemes such as that of Madoff.

Another interesting aspect is the following quotation from the Malvern Statement:

Be assured that none of the money paid to the receiver will be taken from any of the charitable or other funds established by the School’s generous benefactors, and Malvern’s many excellent programmatic and financial aid programs will not be affected.

The meaning of the term “charitable or other funds established by the School’s generous benefactors” is somewhat perplexing. Query whether the general endowment funds of Malvern, which may include not only donations and bequests but also increases from investment earnings and income from operations of the school, fall within the quoted categories. Another potential source for the payment possibly would be current operations.

Installments 30 and 35 of this series pointed out that the Form 990 dated February 9, 2010, filed by Malvern for its fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 with the IRS made no reference (i) to Forte or the fate of his unfulfilled personal pledges and (ii) as to whether the school had written off all or a portion of a Forte outstanding pledge of $500,000.

As stated in Installment 35, it will be interesting to see to what extent Malvern discloses and explains its losses with Forte and the Consent Order in its Form 990 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 to be filed with the IRS. It may provide some guidance for other similarly affected charities.

Installment 30 pointed out that the Form 990 questions and instructions may need some refinement by the IRS to enhance the clarity and consistency of definitions and promote greater and speedier transparency by charities. Further developments in this case may be instructive as to the effectiveness of the current IRS Form 990 and instructions in generating meaningful disclosures.

[To be continued in Installment 38]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the thirty-sixth in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that have arisen for charities in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) Ponzi scheme scandal. A number of Installments have analyzed the Forms 990 and Forms 990-PF filed with the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) by specific public charities and private foundations, respectively, that had been involved in investing with Madoff. Forms 990 and Forms 990-PF that are filed with the IRS are universally available on the Internet on GuideStar and other sites.

On September 24, 2010, Bloomberg.com published an article by Patricia Hurtado entitled “Litwin Foundation Sues SEC for ‘Negligence’ Over Madoff Investment Losses,”  The Hurtado article reported that the Litwin Foundation (the “Foundation”) has sued the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) for the recovery of at least $19 million and other unspecified damages for alleged negligence of the SEC in failing to uncover the Madoff scheme years earlier when it had had countless opportunities to do so. Ms. Hurtado observed that the lawsuit alleged further that the SEC had countless opportunities to stop the Ponzi scheme operated by Madoff over a 16 years period and “botched all of them.”

A review of the Foundation’s Forms 990-PF for the calendar years 2006, 2007 and 2008 (the “2008 Form 990-PF,” and, collectively with the Forms 990-PF for 2006 and 2007, the “Foundation Forms 990-PF”) reveals that the delay in discovery of the Madoff scheme did result in losses for the Foundation and Leonard Litwin, its President (“Mr. Litwin”), in recent years.

The 2008 Form 990-PF reports a “Theft Loss Bernard Madoff Securities” of $68,815,242.  However, that is not necessarily the complete and accurate story of what the Foundation and Mr. Litwin lost with Madoff. As we have learned repeatedly from other investors with Madoff, the write-down on a balance sheet of large carrying values of assets invested with Madoff may be primarily the result of fictitious returns reported over the years on statements provided by him.

However, the Foundation Forms 990-PF further reveal that Mr. Litwin made personal cash contributions to the Foundation of $34 million in 2006 and $6 million in 2007 for a total of $40 million. The Forms 990-PF also disclose that, in turn, the Foundation made charitable cash contributions of $3,714,003 in 2006, $9,450,882 in 2007 and $8,227,099 in 2008, for a total of $21,391,984 for the three years. The difference is $18,608,086 in actual cash that the Foundation and Mr. Litwin might not have lost with Madoff had the Ponzi scheme been terminated earlier than 2006.

Nonetheless, the future fate of this Foundation lawsuit and others against the SEC is at best uncertain and complex. There are potentially causation, market volatility, tracing of assets, sovereign immunity and contributory negligence issues, among others, that may confront the Foundation before it can prevail.

[To be continued in Installment 37]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the thirty-fifth in a series of Installments on this blog discussing issues that have arisen for charities in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff scandal and other smaller Ponzi schemes. Installment 30 of this series discussed a Ponzi-scheme run by former Trustee Joseph S. Forte (“Forte”) of Malvern Preparatory School (“Malvern” or the “school”). Malvern, among other charities, had claimed that it was a victim of the Ponzi scheme, even though the school had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from Forte.

Harold Brubaker, who has written several articles on the subject in The Philadelphia Inquirer, published an article on September 17, 2010, entitled “Malvern Prep to return $700,000 received from Ponzi schemer.” The Brubaker article reported that Malvern had agreed in a consent order to return $700,000 received as contributions from Forte of the $900,000 originally sought by Marion A. Hecht, the court-appointed receiver (the “Receiver”). According to Mr. Brubaker, the Receiver is seeking recovery of substantial sums from other charities that also received donations from Forte.
Installment 30 pointed out that the Form 990 dated February 9, 2010, filed by Malvern for its fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 with the IRS (the “Malvern 2009 Form 990”) made no mention of Forte or the fate of his personal pledges, although the Forms 990 filed by the school for the immediately prior two fiscal years had clearly listed him among its Trustees. Moreover, Installment 30 noted that no reference had been made in the Malvern 2009 Form 990 as to whether the school had written off all or a portion of a Forte pledge of $500,000, which may have been a “diversion of assets” requiring a specific explanation if more than $250,000 had been written off.

It will be interesting to see whether, and to what extent, Malvern makes a disclosure and explanation of its losses and settlement with the Receiver respecting Forte in its Form 990 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 to be filed with the IRS. Installment 30 pointed out that the Form 990 questions and instructions may need some refinement by the IRS to enhance the clarity and consistency of definitions and promote greater and speedier transparency by charities. Further developments in this case may be instructive in that regard.

[To be continued in Installment 36]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the thirty-third in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that arose in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal.  Against the backdrop of the Madoff scandal, various Installments of this series have analyzed new disclosure requirements for public charities adopted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2008 with its new Form 990. In particular, Installment 31 of this series provided analysis of the Form 990 for 2008 (the “2008 Form 990”) of American Jewish Congress, Inc. (“AJCongress”), which, like other Forms 990, is universally available on Guidestar.

Installment 31 stated that, on July 22, 2010, AJCongress President Richard Gordon reported on the AJCongress Website (the “Gordon Statement”) that the organization was suspending operations after, among other things, “Bernie Madoff stole approximately $21 million from our organization. . . .”

Installment 31 reported incorrectly that the only reference to Madoff and the AJCongress losses on the AJCongress website is the Gordon Statement.  Another reference to the Madoff losses for AJCongress may be found in the 2009 Annual Report of AJCongress (the “2009 Annual Report”), which may be reached directly from the AJCongress Homepage by clicking on the link “Click here to view Annual Report of Accomplishments- 2009.”

Unfortunately, in stark contradiction to the Gordon Statement, the first two paragraphs of the 2009 Annual Report read as follows:

As a difficult year—our 91st—draws to a close, it is appropriate to bring our friends and supporters up to date on our accomplishments. These are considerable, although the year began so inauspiciously with the looting of AJCongress endowment funds by Bernard Madoff.

We acted promptly to contain the damage, but the price the Madoff fraud exacted was high—we were forced to let go many valued and long-time AJCongress employees; we reduced spending to a minimum; and we relocated to smaller quarters. We have completed these actions, stabilized our finances and have begun to look forward to expanding the agency so that it may continue its historic role as attorney general of the American Jewish community.

The 2009 Annual Report concludes as follows:

The past year [2009] was a time for consolidating and reorganizing. This coming year [2010] must be a time of vigorous growth for AJCongress. But that can happen only if you contribute generously as this year comes to a close. We are counting on you.

The 2009 Annual Report paragraphs are seriously outdated, create a mistaken impression and belie the Gordon Statement. Even more concerning is the fact that the link to the 2009 Annual Report on the Homepage is placed directly below an active “Donation” link.  The Gordon Statement is not on the AJCongress Homepage or the pages seeking donations or memberships. Nor is there any cross-reference on those pages to the Gordon Statement, as there is to the 2009 Annual Report and its contradictory information.

As reported in Installment 31, AJCongress appears to be continuing business as usual on its Website in soliciting donations and memberships. As a personal matter, on August 5, 2010, I became an individual member in AJCongress online with a credit card payment. An unknowing visitor to the AJCongress Website could easily do that without seeing any information about the organization’s current distressed status. These disclosure matters should be addressed and rectified by AJCongress promptly.

As a final point, Charity Navigator,,a website that rates charities based on their Form 990 filings with the IRS, has made AJCongress number one on its list of “10 Charities Drowning in Administrative Costs.” Charity Navigator states that each of the 10 named charities

directs more than 44% of its budget towards administrative costs. That means most of your money goes toward such expenses as liability insurance, accounting and legal services, administrative salaries, and investment expenses, not the programs you aim to support.

Out of fairness to AJCongress and its venerable charitable history, it should be observed that the 2008 Form 990, upon which the organization’s Charity Navigator rating was based, included the results of the financial devastation that emanated from the Madoff revelations.

Nevertheless, AJCongress should consider correcting the disclosure deficiencies on its Website cited above by appropriately highlighting the curtailment of its charitable activities.

[To be continued in Installment 34]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the thirty-first in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that arose in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal.  Various Installments of this series
have analyzed new disclosure requirements for public charities adopted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2008 for its new Form 990 against the backdrop of the Madoff scandal.  The Forms 990, including the Form 990 (the “2008 Form 990”) of American Jewish Congress, Inc. (“AJCongress”) for the calendar year 2008 discussed below are universally available on the Internet on Guidestar and other sites.

AJCongress was founded 91 years ago to fight anti-Semitism and protect civil rights. The organization was one of the charities that was identified early as a major victim of Madoff when the scandal became public in December 2008, at which time AJCongress said it would not close. 

On July 22, 2010, AJCongress President Richard Gordon reported on the AJCongress Website that the organization was suspending operations after, among other things, “Bernie Madoff stole approximately $21 million from our organization. . . .”

A review of the current AJCongress Website reveals that the statement of Mr. Gordon is the only reference to Madoff and the AJCongress losses.  Further, in spite of the suspension of activities by AJCongress and some reports that it is seeking to merge with at least one other charity, AJCongress appears to be continuing business on its Website as usual in soliciting donations and memberships, including life memberships that cost $1,000.  The statement by Mr. Gordon is only contained under the AJCongress tab for “Press Statements,” not on its Homepage or the pages seeking AJCongress donations or memberships.  A visitor to the Website would have to visit that tab specifically in order to learn about the dire financial straits of AJCongress.

Clearly “best practices” in transparency would mandate that the statement by Mr. Gordon as to suspension of AJCongress activities be placed on the AJCongress Homepage and/or the fund solicitation pages, or at least prominently cross-referenced on those pages.

Probing deeper into the AJCongress disclosure process, a review of the 2008 Form 990 filed with the IRS on November 23, 2009 reveals that AJCongress properly answered “Yes” to the following question on Line 5 under the heading “Government, Management, and Disclosure”: “Did the organization become aware during the year of a material diversion of the organization’s assets?”

On Schedule O to the 2008 Form 990, AJCongress gave the following explanation for the foregoing “Yes” answer:

Approximately $2.2 million of investitures with Bernard Madoff Securities were stolen by Mr. Madoff. Additionally, some $16 million in trust funds were administered by AJCongress officers and employees (in one case, the Trusts’ [sic] were for the benefit of AJCongress) were also taken by Mr. Madoff.

The 2008 Form 990 shows that the net assets of AJCongress declined from $16,925,097 to December 31, 2007 to $3,764,412 as of December 31, 2008.

Therefore, while, the 2008 Form 990 appropriately called attention to the financial debacle that the organization had suffered during 2008, as discussed earlier, no attention was called to this fact on the AJCongress Website until the statement of suspension of activities by Mr. Gordon was posted.

Further, the 2008 Form 990 is unusually incomplete, with omissions in several areas.  For example, there were two pages attached at the end of the Form 990 of AJCongress for 2007 that named almost 100 volunteers who were on its Executive Committee and Governing Committee.  However, no volunteers were named in the 2008 Form 990 in response to Part VII, Section A, which called for a list of all current officers, directors, trustees (whether individuals or organizations), regardless of compensation.  The response in the table in Part A was cut off after the word “See -” in the 2008 Form 990 but appears that it would have directed the reader to other pages for a list of the volunteers, which have not been included.

Even more significantly, AJCongress answered “Yes” to the following question on Line 4 under the heading “Government, Management, and Disclosure” in the 2008 Form 990: “Did the organization make any significant changes to its organizational documents since the prior Form 990 was filed?”

On Schedule O to the 2008 Form 990, AJCongress gave the following explanation for the foregoing “Yes” answer: “See attached amendment to the Constitution of the American Jewish Congress.”

Again, as in the case of the members of the Executive Committee and the Governing Committee, no amendment to the Constitution was attached to the 2008 Form 990.

The omission of the amendment to the AJCongress Constitution is perplexing, as it has been reported by JTA that “the group [AJCongress] has money in the bank but cannot access it now due to the constraints of its constitution.” Had the constitutional amendments been included with the 2008 Form 990, it would have been possible for readers to analyze more meaningfully the status of AJCongress.

One final observation regarding the preparation of the 2008 Form 990 relates to the following question on Line 10 under the heading “Government, Management, and Disclosure”: “Was a copy of the Form 990 provided to the organization’s governing body before it was filed?  All organizations must describe in Schedule O the process, if any, the organization uses to review the Form 990.”

Not only did AJCongress answer the question on Line 10 “No,” there was no description in Schedule O of the process that the organization used to review the 2008 Form 990.  Perhaps if the AJCongress Executive Committee and Governing Committee had had the opportunity to see the  2008 Form 990 prior to its filing with the IRS, the omissions of the list of governing board members and the amendment to the AJCongress Constitution discussed above could have been discovered.

Although AJCongress has made disclosures of its financial status and direction since the Madoff scandal surfaced, the organization could have improved their timeliness, quality, consistency and completeness. It is not too late to improve the transparency, however, perhaps by placing a complete 2008 Form 990 on the AJCongress Website Homepage.

[This Installment has been amended from its original posting to reflect a change to "AJCongress" in the defined term for American Jewish Congress, Inc., in order to avoid potential confusion with any other organization.  We apologize for any misunderstanding that may have taken place.]

[To be continued in Installment 32]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the thirtieth in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that arose for charities in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal.  For example, Installment 29 analyzed new disclosure requirements for public charities adopted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2008 for its new Form 990 (the “New Form 990”) against the backdrop of the Madoff scandal and its relationship to Howard Hughes Medical Institute (“HHMI”).  Forms 990 that are filed with the IRS, including the New Form 990 of HHMI and those discussed in this Installment, are universally available on the Internet on Guidestar and other sites.

Madoff, however, was not the only person to have operated an alleged Ponzi scheme that materially and adversely affected charities.  The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article by Harold Brubaker on July 7, 2010, entitled “A Workout in Court over Ponzi-scheme Gift.”  The Brubaker article reported that Malvern Preparatory School (“Malvern” or the “school”), among other charities, is claiming that it is a victim of a Ponzi-scheme run by its former Trustee Joseph S. Forte (“Forte”), even though the school had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from him.  Malvern is a venerable 167-year old independent Catholic middle and high school for boys in Malvern PA.  Forte is reported to be serving a 15-year prison term for investment fraud, having pleaded guilty on June 5, 2009.

Mr. Brubaker stated that, unlike other Forte charities that have chosen to negotiate with the receiver for Forte’s estate on donated monies that the receiver is endeavoring to “clawback,” Malvern is suing to retain the money donated by Forte.  The Brubaker article explains that the basis of the Malvern claim for victim status is complicated:

The school, known for its sports programs, went into debt constructing a strength-and-conditioning center at Forte's urging and after he pledged $1 million to pay for it. But Forte only paid $500,000 of his pledge, according to the school, leaving Malvern Prep in debt for the rest. The school's June 30 [2010 lawsuit] filing asserted a counterclaim for $630,000, which includes $565,000 for a portion of a term loan needed to pay for the center plus $65,000 in fees and interest.

The facts in the Malvern case are unusual because Malvern was not just a charitable beneficiary of Forte as was the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which was mentioned in the Brubaker article.  Nor was the school simply a direct or indirect investor with Forte as, for example, Hadassah and Yeshiva University were with Madoff, as reported in Installments 22 and 23 of this series.

The discovery of the Forte scandal, his guilty plea and conviction, the Securities and Exchange Commission actions, and the appointment of Marion A. Hecht, CPA, CFE, CIRA, CFF, and MBA, Managing Director of the forensic litigation and valuation division of Goodman & Company, LLP, as receiver for Forte’s assets, all occurred during Malvern’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 (“Fiscal 2009”). A review of the balance sheet in the New Form 990 dated February 9, 2010, filed by Malvern for Fiscal 2009 with the IRS (the “Malvern 2009 Form 990”) reveals a decline in the category of “Pledges Receivable” during Fiscal 2009 of approximately $1.2 million from $2,003,004 to $785,992.  Because there is no note or explanation by Malvern in the Malvern 2009 Form 990 regarding the category, it is impossible to tell whether all or any portion of the $500,000 Forte pledge was written off by the school during the Fiscal 2009.

Malvern’s financial association with Forte was a complex “hybrid” case in that Malvern not only received direct donations from Forte that were presumably proceeds from his investment scheme; in effect, Malvern also was a type of investor with him. Malvern dedicated the proceeds of Forte’s bounty for the purpose of the strength-and-conditioning center that the school was reluctant to build in the first place and, in doing so, incurred its own new debt in reliance upon the anticipated payment of the remainder of the Forte pledge. Therefore, Malvern has suffered a real investment loss from the failure of Forte to satisfy his $500,000 pledge to pay for the indebtedness incurred by the school to build the project that Forte had induced it to undertake.

It is somewhat perplexing that the Malvern 2009 Form 990 makes no mention of Forte or the fate of his personal pledge, although the Forms 990 filed by the school for the immediately prior two fiscal years clearly listed him among its Trustees.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that, as discussed in Installment 29 of this series, Part VI of New Form 990 entitled “Government, Management and Disclosure” has the following question on Line 5 for an answer of “Yes” or “No” by the organization: “Did the organization become aware during the year of a material diversion of the organization’s assets?”

In the Malvern 2009 Form 990, Line 5 was answered “No.”

The instructions for completing the New Form 990 (the “Form 990 Instructions”) provides the following, in part, as to Line 5:

Answer “Yes” if the organization became aware during the organization’s tax year of a material diversion of its assets, whether or not the diversion occurred during the year. If “Yes,” explain the nature of the diversion, amounts or property involved, corrective actions taken to address the matter, and pertinent circumstances in Schedule O, though the person or persons who diverted the assets should not be identified by name.

A diversion of assets includes any unauthorized conversion or use of the organization’s assets other than for the organization’s authorized purposes, including but not limited to an embezzlement or theft. . . .

For this purpose, a diversion is considered material if the gross
dollar amount (not taking into account restitution, insurance, or similar recoveries) exceeds the lesser of (1) $250,000 or (2) 5 percent of the lesser of the organization’s gross receipts for its tax year or total assets as of the end of its tax year.

If the decline in the Pledges Receivable in the Malvern 2009 Form 990 was attributable in part to a write-off of at least $250,000 of the outstanding $500,000 Forte pledge because of the repudiation of the Forte pledge by the receiver, the school should have considered making an explanation on Schedule O. If such a write-off of the Forte pledge did actually occur during Fiscal 2009, Malvern and its professional advisers apparently employed a narrow interpretation of the definition of “diversion of assets.”

While such a narrow interpretation may be supportable, I believe that the desirability of Malvern’s having taken a broader view of the term “diversion of assets” was heightened by the fact that Forte had been a Trustee of the school. As a matter of fact the Form 990 Instructions make a specific point that the category Pledges Receivable should include pledges of trustees, after any amounts estimated to be uncollectible:

Line 3. Pledges and grants receivable, Net. Enter the total
of (a) all pledges receivable, less any amounts estimated to be
uncollectible, including pledges made by officers, directors,
trustees, key employees, and highest compensated
employees and (b) all grants receivable.

As a final note, even if no write-off of all or a portion of the Forte receivable occurred during Fiscal 2009, in my view, Malvern should have considered making an explanation in the Malvern 2009 Form 990 as to why it was continuing to carry the Forte pledge in Pledges Receivable at full value.

In summation, the New Form 990 questions and Form 990 Instructions may need some refinement by the IRS to enhance the clarity and consistency of definitions and promote greater transparency by charities, as has been recommended in this and earlier Installments of this series.

[To be continued in Installment 31]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-ninth in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that arose in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal. Various Installments of this series have analyzed new disclosure requirements for public charities adopted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in 2008 for its new Form 990 (the “New Form 990”) against the backdrop of the Madoff scandal. The Forms 990, including the Form 990 (the “HHMI Form 990”) of Howard Hughes Medical Institute (“HHMI”) for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009 (“Fiscal 2009”), are universally available on the Internet on Guidestar and other sites.

HHMI is one of the largest and most highly respected charitable organizations in the world, as a leading philanthropic organization dedicated to serving society through biomedical research and science education. On February 5, 2009, in the early aftermath of the arrest of Madoff in December 2008, HHMI was on a 163-page list of customer account names produced by the Madoff Bankruptcy Court and reproduced by many Web sites such as The New York Times.  In a commentary on every page of its list, The Times notes the following:

The list of customer account names found by the court-appointed trustee in the records of Bernard L. Madoff's wealth management firm, as well as names of people who contacted the trustee to say they believed they had been Madoff customers and wanted to file a claim. Some of the names on the list are those of lawyers, accountants, foundation trustees and agents who set up the accounts on behalf of the actual investors in the Madoff fund, which investigators are calling the biggest Ponzi scheme ever. Some people on the list have said publicly that they were included in error.

Other Madoff-related media reports respecting charities such as charitygovernance.com identified HHMI as having been a direct or indirect victim of Madoff.  Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News published an article on March 15, 2009 on the effects of the Madoff scandal on life sciences research. It featured the following relative to HHMI:

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) is looking resolutely forward. “That was long ago and far away,” VP for communications and public affairs Avice Meehan says of the Madoff scandal. “It will have no impact at all on our operations, although it has had consequences on the institutions where our researchers work. At HHMI, we’re assessing the result of the ongoing financial challenge on our endowments and operations. At this point, despite ongoing volatility, we expect to meet our commitment to our grantees, investigators, and Janelia Farm [Research Campus], and are proceeding with new initiatives with some degree of caution.”

Except for the aforementioned and similar items, there appears to be virtually no publicly available information as to the extent, if any, to which HHMI had direct or indirect exposure to losses with Madoff. There are no references to the Madoff matter in the HHMI Form 990, the on-line Annual Report of HHMI for Fiscal 2009 or the financial statements of HHMI for Fiscal 2009 audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

In light of the relatively scarce public information available and the stature and leadership position of HHMI in the charities field, I contacted HHMI to solicit clarification and information from them relative to the status of HHMI as a potential direct or indirect victim of Madoff. I was advised, “It has long been HHMI’s practice to decline comment on specific investments and we have decided, after some discussion, to adhere to that practice.”

The absence of any information in the HHMI Form 990 regarding losses by HHMI with Madoff is surprising in light of the changes made by the IRS in New Form 990. Part VI of the New Form 990, entitled “Government, Management and Disclosure” has the following question on Line 5 for an answer of “Yes” or “No” by the organization:

“Did the organization become aware during the year of a material diversion of the organization’s assets?” [Emphasis supplied] In the HHMI Form 990, Line 5 was answered “No” by HHMI.

The final revised instructions for completing the New Form 990 for 2008 (the “Form 990 Instructions”) provided the following, in part, as to Line 5:

Answer “Yes” if the organization became aware during the organization’s tax year of a material diversion of its assets, whether or not the diversion occurred during the year. If “Yes,” explain the nature of the diversion, amounts or property involved, corrective actions taken to address the matter, and pertinent circumstances in Schedule O, though the person or persons who diverted the assets should not be identified by name.

A diversion of assets includes any unauthorized conversion or use of the organization’s assets other than for the organization’s authorized purposes, including but not limited to an embezzlement or theft. . . .

For this purpose, a diversion is considered material if the gross
dollar amount (not taking into account restitution, insurance, or similar recoveries) exceeds the lesser of (1) $250,000 or (2) 5 percent of the lesser of the organization’s gross receipts for its tax year or total assets as of the end of its tax year. [Emphasis supplied]

In my view, it is likely that a diversion, if any, by Madoff of assets of HHMI would have been immaterial on a relative basis as compared to the $14 billion in endowment funds as of August 31, 2009 and the $3.5 billion decline of endowment funds during Fiscal 2009 reported by HHMI. However, relative immateriality is not the standard for disclosure under New Form 990. The standard for disclosure is the lesser of (1) $250,000 or (2) 5 percent of the lesser of the organization’s gross receipts for its tax year or total assets as of the end of its tax year.

In light of HHMI’s vast scale of operations and $14 billion investment portfolio, if HHMI had any diversion of assets attributable to Madoff, it would likely have not been less than the threshold for New Form 990 disclosure of $250,000. Perhaps there may be an explanation or interpretation for the non-disclosure by HHMI that is not readily evident from the materials publicly available; we would invite anew any clarifying comment from HHMI.

[To be continued in Installment 30]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-eighth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing some of the issues arising in the aftermath of the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff (“Bernard”). Many of the Installments in this series have focused on specific problems and concerns respecting public charities and private foundations that were victims of this and similar schemes.

Installment 15 of this series, posted on September 15, 2009, discussed a lawsuit (the “Foundation Lawsuit”) brought by two children of, and the private charitable foundation (the “Foundation”) formed by, Senator Frank Lautenberg, its President. The claims in the Foundation Lawsuit include allegations that Peter Madoff (“Peter”), the brother of Bernard, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose to investors with whom Peter had been involved that Bernard’s company was engaged in fraudulent activities. The plaintiffs in the Foundation Lawsuit claim losses aggregating almost $9 million.

Installment 15 discussed some concerns regarding the likelihood of success of the Foundation Lawsuit against Peter. One of the questions asked was whether the preliminary success of the Foundation Lawsuit would spur other stakeholders to sue members of the Madoff family, thereby exposing them to the potential for very large claims that could precipitate bankruptcy filings for Peter and other family members. Indeed, there have been a number of lawsuits filed against members of the family of Bernard, as reported in a recent article by Bloomberg Business Week.

The Bloomberg Business Week article also reported that a new threat to the success of the Foundation Lawsuit has emerged. Specifically, Irving Picard, the trustee in the liquidation of Bernard’s bankrupt estate, is seeking to block a dozen lawsuits against relatives of Bernard, including the Foundation Lawsuit. Mr. Picard has asked a U.S. bankruptcy court to halt the suits, arguing that they are an attempt by the claimants to “leapfrog” other victims to recover more than they are due. The article quotes Mr. Picard’s pleadings as alleging that there is only “one pool of customer property,” and plaintiffs, such as the Foundation, should not be allowed to obtain preferential recoveries.

Installment 15 also reported that as of September 15, 2009, a check of the charity information website Guidestar indicated that the Form 990-PF Internal Revenue Service (IRS”) filing of the Foundation for 2008 had not yet been posted. Surprisingly, a current check of Guidestar indicates that the Form 990-PF of the Foundation for 2008 had still not yet been posted, even though the latest date (with permitted extensions) for timely filing with the IRS was November 16, 2009.

Readers should stay tuned for further developments in this matter, as the nature and extent of disclosures that are made by the Foundation in its 2008 Form 990-PF, especially with respect to the Foundation Lawsuit and the financial status and contingencies respecting the Foundation, should be interesting.

[To be continued in Installment 29]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-seventh in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that arose in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal. Against the backdrop of the Madoff scandal, Installment 26 of this series discussed certain disclosure requirements for public charities adopted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in its new Form 990 (the “New Form 990”) and contrasted such requirements with those of the Form 990-PF filed with the IRS by private charitable foundations. The Forms 990 and 990-PF (including those discussed in this Installment) are universally available on the Internet on Guidestar and other sites.

Installment 26 of this blog series observed that, for 2007, the Carl & Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation (the “Shapiro Foundation”) filed a Form 990-PF (the “Shapiro 990-PF”) and an amended Form 990-PF (the “Shapiro Amendment”). The Shapiro Amendment reflected a disappearance for the Shapiro Foundation of (i) $191,003,929 in fair market of assets and (ii) $38,953,906 in investment income previously reported in the Shapiro 990-PF. However, the Shapiro Amendment gave no explanation for the disappearances or that they had resulted from events that came to light in December 2008 and thereafter; even more troubling was the fact that the Shapiro Amendment contained no reference to Madoff whatsoever, even though the schedules in the original Shapiro 990-PF had referred to him 10 times by name.

The Shapiro Foundation filed its 2008 Form 990-PF with the IRS on November 20, 2009. Again, as in the Shapiro Amendment, no reference was made to the substantial investments with, or losses attributable to, Madoff.

This somewhat perplexing approach to disclosure adopted by the Shapiro Foundation regarding its involvement with Madoff is in stark contrast to the filing with the IRS on September 23, 2009, by the Judy & Fred Wilpon Family Foundation (the “Wilpon Foundation”) of its 2008 Form 990-PF (the “Wilpon Form 990-PF”). The Wilpon Form 990-PF did not merely disclose the fact that the Wilpon Foundation had investments with, and losses from, Madoff; the Wilpon 2008 Form 990-PF attached as Appendix A the Wilpon Foundation’s “Statement by Taxpayer Using the Procedures in Rev. Proc. 2009-20 to Determine a Theft Loss Deduction Related to a Fraudulent Investment Arrangement.” That Statement discloses the calculation of the Wilpon Foundation’s losses attributable to Madoff.

Each of the filings by the Shapiro Foundation and the Wilpon Foundation may be in compliance with current IRS requirements for Forms 990-PF; however, we are in an era of ever greater expectations by society for transparency in the operations and activities of charitable organizations. The Wilpon Foundation’s filing came much closer to achieving these expectations than the filings by the Shapiro Foundation.

As was stated in Installment 26, the IRS has greatly enhanced the quality of disclosure required in the New Form 990. It should review and consider revisions for the Form 990-PF to enhance consistency and transparency of reporting by private foundations and require more meaningful explanation of material matters and events.

[To be continued in Installment 28]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-sixth in a series of Installments on this blog that discusses issues that arose in the aftermath of the Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”) scandal. Against the backdrop of the Madoff scandal, prior Installments of this series have discussed and analyzed new disclosure requirements for public charities adopted by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) in its new Form 990 (the “New Form 990”). Forms 990 filed by public charities and Forms 990-PF filed by private charitable foundations are universally available on the Internet on Guidestar and other sites.

One important change in the New Form 990 that has received relatively little notice, perhaps because it has not yet been greatly utilized, is the following highlighted addition to the first paragraph of instructions for filing an amended Form 990.
 

G. Amended Return/Final Return

To change the organization’s return for any year, file a new return including any required schedules. Use the version of Form 990 applicable to the year being amended. The amended return must provide all the information called for by the form and instructions, not just the new or corrected information. Check the Amended Return box in the heading of the return. Also, state in Schedule O which parts and schedules of the Form 990 were amended and describe the amendments.

The addition to the New Form 990 amendment instructions was clearly intended to give reviewers a roadmap to isolate and analyze why an amendment was necessary and the changes that were made. Since many New Forms 990 can run 40 pages or more, such assistance to the reader is vital for a meaningful review.

In contrast, the Form 990-PF and its instructions for preparation and filing with the IRS by private charitable foundations has not gone through a recent major revision. The instructions for filing an amended Form 990-PF read in part as follows:

To change the organization's return for any year, file an amended return, including attachments, with the correct information. The amended return must provide all the information required by the form and instructions, not just the new or corrected information. Check “Amended Return” in block G at the top of page 1.

Clearly, the Form 990-PF instructions do not require the identification and a description of amendments as the New Form 990 instructions do. My view is that an amended Form 990-PF should have the same mandatory roadmap for identifying and explaining changes in an amendment as New Form 990.

Amendments to Forms 990-PF for private foundations that were affected by Madoff are now becoming available on Guidestar.  A number of private foundations have filed amended Forms 990-PF to reflect losses in fair market value of assets and investment income on Madoff investments that they had previously reported to the IRS, presumably to recover refunds from the IRS for excise tax paid on the Madoff “investment income” that turned out to be fallacious. These foundations may have been fully compliant with the instructions for amended Forms 990-PF but have not necessarily demonstrated “best practices” in meaningful disclosure.

A case in point is the 2007 Form 990-PF originally filed on May 15, 2008 (the “Shapiro 2007 990-PF”), by the Carl & Ruth Shapiro Family Foundation (the “Foundation”). The Shapiro 2007 990-PF reflected fair market value of assets at the end of 2007 of $323,912,042 and investment income of $43,654,002.

On November 18, 2009, the Foundation filed an amended Form 990-PF (the “Shapiro Amendment”) that reported fair market value of assets at the end of 2007 of $132,908,113 and investment income of $4,700,096.

Therefore, the Shapiro Amendment reflects the disappearance for the Foundation for 2007 of (i) $191,003,929 in fair market of assets and (ii) $38,953,906 in investment income previously reported in the Shapiro 2007 990-PF.

The Shapiro Amendment gave no explanation for the disappearances and said nothing of Madoff, even though the schedules in the Shapiro 2007 990-PF had referred to him 10 times by name. Unless a reader has both documents available side-by-side, it is virtually impossible to understand the changes. The Shapiro Amendment may have been compliant with the Form 990-PF instructions; however, had the Foundation been a public charity, it would have presumably been required to make significantly greater disclosure in a Form 990 amendment.

As a side note, the Foundation changed its Paid Preparer to Caras and Shulman, PC of Burlington, MA for the Shapiro Amendment from Konigsberg, Wolf & Co., P.C., the Paid Preparer for the Shapiro 2007 Form 990-PF. Query whether that change would have required a description if the filing had been an amendment to a Form 990.

In conclusion, the IRS has greatly enhanced the quality of disclosure in the New Form 990. It should review and consider some revisions for the Form 990-PF to require more meaningful explanation of material matters and events.

[To be continued in Installment 27]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-fifth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Defined terms and links not otherwise contained in this Installment are included in Installments 22, 23 and 24.   This Installment will continue the Yeshiva/KPMG discussion that was begun in Installment 24, and readers are encouraged to consult the earlier blog posts as a background for this Installment.

This Installment is Part IV of an analysis of recent public financial reporting of Hadassah and Yeshiva. In earlier Installments, I had stated my view that Yeshiva provided significantly greater credibility, disclosure and transparency relative to Madoff and related matters through its Form 990 filings than Hadassah did in its Forms 990. However, Installment 24 introduced the question whether recent moves by Yeshiva to improve its compliance program and processes, including the retention of Alan Kluger as Director of Tax and Compliance at Yeshiva soon after his departure from KPMG, may have compromised the independence of Yeshiva’s auditor KPMG.

An observation was also made at the end of Installment 24 that Yeshiva did not observe the one-year cooling off period for such retentions by public companies as mandated by the Office of the Chief Accountant (the “OCA”) of the SEC. While Yeshiva, as a 501(c)(3) public charity, is not a public company and is not governed by the OCA, Installment 24 ended by asking whether the audit or other appropriate board committee or the Board of Trustees of Yeshiva sufficiently considered the question of auditor independence in the circumstances of the hiring of Mr. Kluger.

The importance of Yeshiva’s utilizing best practices in avoiding even a question as to auditor independence is highlighted by Footnote 17 to the 2009 Yeshiva Financial Statements.  Footnote 17 discloses that in July 2009 the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (“DASNY”) issued $140,820,000 of Revenue Bonds on behalf of Yeshiva (the “Yeshiva Bonds”).

The minutes of the June 24, 2009 DASNY Board meeting (the “Minutes”) disclose the discussion by the DASNY Board of the authorization of the Yeshiva Bonds. The Yeshiva Minutes evidence the deep concerns of the DASNY Board relative to the quality of the Yeshiva financial statements and other financial events surrounding Yeshiva.

Specifically mentioned in the Minutes was the downgrade of the Yeshiva credit rating by Moody’s and a potential further downgrade by Moody’s. Additionally, the Secretary of the Board, Jacques Jiha, noted that he found it surprising that Yeshiva “did not have an investment officer in place in light of what has happened.” Presumably Mr. Jiha was referring to the decline in the endowment funds of Yeshiva, a substantial portion of which was directly attributable to losses from investments made with Madoff through Ezra Merkin, both of whom were formerly Trustees of Yeshiva.

As an aside, the description of Mr. Kluger’s position at Yeshiva cited in Installment 24 calls for him to consult with the Yeshiva Chief Investment Officer.

Most significantly, however, was the following extract from the Minutes:

[Board Member] Mr. [Anthony B.] Martino explained that the question is whether the [Yeshiva] University’s cash forecast included what was needed for calls on investments. Mr. Martino asked about the status of the University’s audited financial statements. Mr. [David L.] Kvam [Director, Financing Coordination of DASNY] responded that the June 30, 2008 statements had been issued, albeit late.

Mr. Martino asked for confirmation that the University was given an unqualified opinion. Mr. Kvam responded in the affirmative.

Just prior to the close of the Yeshiva fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, in which the Yeshiva Bonds were authorized, and to which the Yeshiva 2009 Financial Statements related, the DASNY Board demonstrated concern about the integrity of the financial statements of Yeshiva.
The DASNY Minutes also reflect that two representatives of KPMG were in attendance at the DASNY Board meeting, presumably relating to Yeshiva. It would appear that none of the other institutions addressed at the DASNY meeting utilized KPMG as its auditor.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that Yeshiva and KPMG were well aware of the concerns and scrutiny to which the financial activities of Yeshiva were being subjected during 2009. To ensure continued auditor independence, they each should have utilized “best practices” in evaluating and authorizing the relatively fast track transitioning of Mr. Kluger from Tax Managing Director of KPMG to Director of Tax and Compliance at Yeshiva.

[To be continued in Installment 26]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders. Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department. He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-fourth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Defined terms and links not otherwise contained in this Installment are included in Installments 22 and 23.

This Installment is Part III of an analysis of recent public financial reporting of Hadassah and Yeshiva. In earlier Installments 22 and 23, I stated my view that Yeshiva provided significantly greater credibility, disclosure and transparency relative to Madoff and related matters through its Form 990 filing than Hadassah did in its Forms 990. However, information now obtained from the Internet may indicate that recent moves by Yeshiva to improve its compliance program and processes may have compromised the independence of its auditor KPMG LLP (“KPMG”).

The facts identified are as follows:

1. On April 3, 2009, Alan Kluger, an attorney and Tax Managing Director of KPMG, executed, as Preparer on behalf of KPMG, the Form 990 of Yeshiva for the year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Yeshiva Form 990”).

2. On April 24, 2009, Bloomberg.com reported, “Yeshiva University’s trustees approved new conflict of interest measures after the school lost millions of dollars in the fraud involving Bernard Madoff, a former trustee.”

3. On November 12, 2009, Alan Kluger executed, as Preparer on behalf of KPMG, the Forms 990 of The Hadassah Foundation, Inc. and of Hadassah Medical Relief Association, Inc., for the short year ended December 31, 2008, copies of which were obtained upon request from Hadassah.

4. On November 18, 2009, KPMG signed its Independent Auditor’s Report for Yeshiva relating to its Consolidated Financial Statements for June 30, 2009 and 2008 (the “2009 Yeshiva Financial Statements”).

5. Mr. Kluger’s LinkedIn entry indicates that he served KPMG as Tax Managing Director from August 2006 to November 2009.

6. There is a description on “indeed®” that describes a former job posting on Jobs.com from seven months ago for the position of Director of Tax and Compliance at “Yeshiva University Alumni [sic?] - Bronx, NY” that is no longer available. The posting described the position at Yeshiva University in part as follows:

Reporting to the Executive Director of Financial Services, the Director of Tax and Compliance will plan, develop and lead tax management activities for the University in consultation with the Vice President for Business Affairs and CFO and staff (Treasurer, Chief Investment Officer, Director of Internal Audit, and Executive Director of Financial Services and will consult regularly with the University’s General Counsel.

[Emphasis supplied. Note that the position relates to the University, not its “Alumni.”]

7. The LinkedIn entry for Mr. Kluger indicates that he currently holds the position of “Director of Tax & Compliance, Yeshiva University.” No commencement date is given in the entry.

Clearly the sequence of events indicates efforts by Yeshiva to upgrade and expand its compliance activities.  In recruiting Mr. Kluger, Yeshiva retained a highly experienced attorney from a “Big 4” accounting firm.  However, there are questions raised by the departure of Mr. Kluger from his senior position at KPMG in November 2009 to his new senior position at Yeshiva, contemporaneous with the completion by KPMG of the 2009 Yeshiva Financial Statements.  Even if Mr. Kluger had no involvement from July 1, 2008 to November 18, 2009 with the preparation of the 2009 Yeshiva Financial Statements, which is difficult to believe in light of his position with KPMG and his history with Yeshiva as a client, he had signed the Yeshiva Form 990 on April 3, 2009.

Yeshiva is a non-profit corporation and is not subject to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) as to auditor independence.  Nevertheless, Yeshiva should have sufficient concerns in the aftermath of the Madoff scandal and as an entity with $1.6 billion in consolidated net assets as of June 30, 2009, to raise awareness and effectiveness of its compliance program by using “best practices” in maintenance of auditor independence. In this regard, the Office of the Chief Accountant (the “OCA”) of the SEC has stated the following as to “Audit Committees and Auditor Independence”:
 

Prohibited Relationships

Certain relationships between audit firms and the companies they audit are not permitted. These include:

 Employment relationships. A one-year cooling off period is required before a company can hire certain individuals formerly employed by its auditor in a financial reporting oversight role.  The audit committee should also consider whether the hiring of personnel that are or were formerly employed by the audit firm might affect the audit firm's independence.

Clearly, Yeshiva did not observe the one-year cooling off period mandated by the OCA for public companies.  Query whether the audit or other appropriate board committee or the Board of Trustees of Yeshiva considered the question of auditor independence in the circumstances of the hiring of Mr. Kluger.

[To be continued in Installment 25]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders.  Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in our Princeton, NJ office, and is a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department.  He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law, and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-third in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Installments 3 through 8, Installment 10 and Installments 14 through 22 of this series focused on the concerns of charities that were investors with Madoff and similar schemes. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors to have their positions evaluated. 

This Installment presents in tabular form and expands Installments 14 and 22 relative to the comparison as to how Hadassah and Yeshiva have disclosed publicly their respective investments with Madoff. Defined terms and links not otherwise contained herein are included in Installments 14 and 22. Readers are encouraged to consult the earlier blog posts as a background for this Installment.

As stated in Installments 14 and 22, it is my view that Yeshiva provided significantly greater disclosure and transparency relative to Madoff and related matters through its Form 990 filing than Hadassah did in its Forms 990.  As a result I believe that Yeshiva has been more successful than Hadassah in using the Form 990 reporting process proactively to build new credibility. 

The following table updates the tabular information contained in Installment 14 based upon the December Hadassah Form 990 that was first discussed in Installment 22. 

A COMPARISON OF HADASSAH AND YESHIVA FORMS 990

(Information in the Hadassah and Yeshiva columns is from the Hadassah Forms 990 and the Yeshiva Form 990, unless otherwise noted; readers may access Forms 990 by visiting Guidestar after making a free online registration. The table below should be read in conjunction with the definitions, links and discussion in Installments 14 and 21 of this series.)

[To be continued in Installment 24]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., the author of this entry and author of an on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders.  Mr. Kline is a partner with Fox Rothschild LLP, based in its Princeton, NJ office, and a past Chair of the firm's Corporate Department.  He concentrates his practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and health law and frequently writes and speaks on topics such as corporate compliance, governance and business and nonprofit law and ethics)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-second in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Installments 3 through 8, Installment 10 and Installments 14 through 21 of this series focused on the concerns of charities that were investors with Madoff and similar schemes. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors to have their positions evaluated.

Installment 14 of this series compared and contrasted recent Forms 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) for fiscal 2008 by two of the most significant and respected charities that invested with Madoff: Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc. (“Hadassah”), and Yeshiva University (“Yeshiva”). While the missions of Hadassah and Yeshiva (collectively, the “Charities”) are different, they provide a basis for comparison of transparency, and share as part of their missions the advancement of education and Jewish awareness in the United States and Israel. For disclosure purposes, readers are again advised that the spouse of the author of this blog contributor has been a Life Member of Hadassah for many years.

Because of the decision by Hadassah to change its fiscal year from a year ending May 31 to the calendar year, Hadassah was required to file a Form 990 with the IRS for the seven-month period ended December 31, 2008 (the “December Hadassah Form 990”). The filing by Hadassah of the December Hadassah Form 990 within approximately seven months after having filed its Form 990 for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 (the “May Hadassah Form 990” and, collectively with the December Hadassah Form 990, the “Hadassah 2008 Forms 990”) within such a short period has enabled an unusual insight into Hadassah’s public financial disclosure decisions.

These Forms 990 filings come at a time in history when Hadassah has been endeavoring to repair its post-Madoff image. In a widely-reprinted January 2010 Associated Press article by David B. Caruso, Hadassah President Nancy Falchuk was quoted as saying that the group has sought to streamline and refocus itself and that she has worked hard to rebuild the nonprofit's reputation.

Nonetheless, it would appear that positive image-building for Hadassah did not extend to best practices in transparency in the May Hadassah Form 990 regarding its dealings with Madoff. The May Hadassah Form 990 contained no disclosure relative to Madoff investments and distributions for Hadassah.

As stated in Installment 14 of this series, Hadassah did not measure up to the level of transparency regarding Madoff provided by Yeshiva in its Form 990 filing with the IRS for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (the “Yeshiva Form 990”). While Hadassah did not mention its Madoff financial complexities at all in the May Hadassah Form 990, the Yeshiva Form 990 clearly laid out the dollar amounts involved with Madoff. Curiously the contrasting methods of presentation were in Forms 990 whose professional Preparer was the Park Avenue, New York, office of KPMG LLP, and the same professional at KPMG signed all of such Forms 990.

There is an even more perplexing point about the Hadassah 2008 Forms 990 when they are compared to Hadassah’s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended May 31, 2008 and December 31, 2008, with the auditors’ report of KPMG LLP (collectively, the “2008 Financial Statements”). Hadassah is to be commended for voluntarily making the 2008 Financial Statements available to the public on request.

Both of the 2008 Financial Statements contains a note as to the Hadassah/Madoff involvement. The note in the Hadassah December 31, 2008 financial statements about Madoff is substantially the same as the note in the December 2008 Hadassah Form 990. However, the May Hadassah Form 990 was silent as to Madoff, and that Form 990 actually related to the fiscal year in which Hadassah took the substantial write-down in Madoff “assets”. In contrast to the May Hadassah Form 990, the following statement is part of Note (15) Subsequent Events to the Hadassah May 31, 2008 audited financial statements (“Note 15”):

Subsequent to year-end, Hadassah learned that it has been a victim of the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff Securities LLC (Madoff) which resulted in write-off of an investment amounting to $88,725,362 as of May 31, 2008. Investor statements received from Madoff reported total investments at fair value of $88,725,362 and $80,684,460 at May 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, and investment return of $8,040,902 and $11,405,448 for the years ended May 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. . . .
 

It is puzzling that Hadassah and its Form 990 Preparer would determine not to include in the May Hadassah Form 990 the language of Note 15 when they deemed it material enough to explain the substantial write off in the corresponding 2008 Financial Statements. It is especially perplexing that the contemporary Yeshiva Form 990 for which KPMG LLP was also the Preparer did have a comprehensive note explaining its write-down of investments with Madoff. Again, I believe that Yeshiva has been more successful than Hadassah in using the Yeshiva Form 990 to build new credibility and repair a damaged reputation than Hadassah has done with the Hadassah 2008 Forms 990.

[To be continued in Installment 23]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the twenty-first in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing some issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Installments 3 through 8, Installment 10 and Installments 14 through 20 of this series focused on the concerns of charities that were investors with Madoff and similar schemes. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors to have their positions evaluated.

Installment 19 of this series pointed out that Monday, November 16, 2009 was a critical day for Section 501(c)(3) public charities and private foundations (collectively, “501(c) Entities”) with a calendar fiscal year. It was the final day on which such 501(c) Entities could file their Forms 990 and 990-PF (collectively, “Forms 990”) with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) for calendar year 2008 on a timely basis to avoid possible IRS penalties.

There were reports that there was such a high volume of Forms 990 filed electronically with the IRS that day that some charities experienced substantial delays in their filing efforts.

Installment 19 also pointed out that over the course of the next several months it will be interesting and informative to visit www.guidestar.org to review and analyze the 2008 Forms 990 filings as they are posted. Many calendar year Forms 990 have not yet been posted on www.guidestar.org, presumably because of the crush of last minute November filings,

Nonetheless, for those who want or need to get the Forms 990 information immediately, including potential donors who want to make decisions about 2009 charitable gifts, there are other alternatives. Generally the IRS says that the Forms 990 copies should be made available by the 501(c)(3) Entity for public inspection and copying on the same day if the request is made by appearing in person at the principal offices of the charity. The charity has up to thirty (30) days to respond to written requests made by regular mail, e-mail, facsimile or private delivery. The charity is allowed to charge for actual postage and modest copying fees.

A request for Forms 990 made at the principal headquarters of 501(c)(3) Entities should get a prompt response within 24 hours. Many charities are highly sensitive to their obligations to make Forms 990 available and may even respond within a day to a telephone, facsimile or e-mail request.

Other 501(c)(3) Entities may be unaware of their Forms 990 public inspection responsibilities or may even be evasive or unwilling to provide the Forms 990. Potential donors should have a healthy skepticism about such behavior and can advise the IRS, if necessary. 501(c)(3) Entities can be subject to IRS penalties and potential adverse publicity for failure to respond promptly.

Best wishes to all for a happy and healthy holiday season.

[To be continued in Installment 22]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the nineteenth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing some issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Madoff”). Installments 3 through 8, Installment 10 and Installments 14 through 18 of this series focused on the specific concerns of charities that were victims of Madoff and similar schemes. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors to have their positions evaluated.

Monday, November 16, 2009 is a critical day for Section 501(c)(3) public charities and private foundations with a calendar fiscal year that invested with Madoff. As a matter of fact, it is a critical day for all Section 501(c)(3) charitable organizations with a calendar fiscal year. It is the final day on which such public charities and private foundations can file their Forms 990 and 990-PF, respectively, with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) for calendar year 2008 on a timely basis after using both of the two potentially available extension periods. A fling after that date is delinquent and can lead to penalties by the IRS.

While this blog series has strongly advocated filings with the IRS by charitable organizations for 2008 as early as possible, many have delayed their filings until the deadline. A number of factors may have led to this approach, including the following:

1. The new Form 990 for 2008 added probing questions on governance, executive compensation, charitable mission, policies, etc., which required many of the charities to institute or update protocols and procedures.

2. The accounting and auditing firms that assist charities in preparing Forms 990 and 990-PF were under great pressure to deal with the complexities of the new Forms and the financial challenges facing many charities.

3. During 2008 many charities suffered substantial losses in endowment fund values and declines in fundraising that led some of them to delay potentially embarrassing disclosures to the public as long as possible.

4. A number of those charities that invested with Madoff and similar alleged Ponzi schemes had hoped that the IRS would give greater guidance on the uncertainties in treatment of losses and distributions in their filings for 2008 and prior years.

5. Charities that have invested with Madoff or suffered large losses during 2008 may have wanted to see how other Forms 990 and 990-PF filers that filed earlier in the year with the IRS treated the subjects in their financial statements and textual materials.

6. Even charities that did not suffer losses in 2008 may have wanted to see how other Forms 990 and 990-PF filers that filed earlier treated subjects such as description of mission, conflicts of interest and whistleblower policies, executive compensation and other potentially sensitive new areas of disclosure.

Over the course of the next several months it will be interesting and informative to visit Guidestar to review and analyze the 2008 Form 990 and 990-PF filings as they are posted. This blog series will continue to monitor and report on such developments.

[To be continued in Installment 20]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the fifteenth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing some of the issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff (“Bernard”). Installments 3 through 8 and Installments 10 and 14 of this series focused on the specific concerns of charities that were victims of Madoff and similar schemes. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors promptly to have their positions evaluated.

A Cliffview Pilot report on September 15, 2009 by Jerry DeMarco reported that U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler in Newark declined to dismiss a lawsuit brought by two children of, and the private charitable foundation (the “Foundation”) formed by, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who was its President. The claims in the lawsuit include allegations that Peter Madoff violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose to investors that the company of his brother Bernard was engaged in a fraud. The plaintiffs are claiming losses aggregating almost $9 million.

Concerns about the profound financial and other impacts on charities, both public and private, from investments with Bernard were published soon after the Bernard scandal became public in December 2008. See, for example, “Charities Now Seek Bankruptcy Protection,” by Stephanie Strom in The New York Times on February 20, 2009.

The progress of the lawsuit brought by the Foundation raises several interesting points, some of which were discussed in previous Installments of this blog series.

First, it does appear that actions brought against other members of the Madoff family than Bernard may bear some fruit, separate and apart from the much-publicized Bernard bankruptcy proceedings in New York. Query whether the preliminary success of the Foundation will spur other stakeholders to sue members of the Madoff family, thereby exposing them to the potential for very large claims that could precipitate bankruptcy filings for them as well.

Second, as was discussed in an earlier Installment, private foundations such as the Foundation and their managers have potential liability for excise taxes that may be levied by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for improvident investing. Query whether success in the lawsuit would generate a compelling argument for the Foundation and its managers for avoidance of the excise taxes because of the alleged securities fraud. Alternatively, if the lawsuit is lost by the Foundation, does it increase the potential for success by the IRS in possibly imposing excise taxes on the Foundation and its managers?

Third, a check of the charity information website Guidestar indicates that the Form 990-PF of the Foundation for the 2007 calendar year was filed with the IRS on August 15, 2008. The Form 990-PF for the Foundation for 2008 has not yet been posted on Guidestar. The nature and extent of disclosures that will be made regarding the Foundation in its 2008 Form 990-PF should be illuminating about the litigation, financial status and contingencies respecting the Foundation.

[To be continued in Installment 16]
 

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the fourteenth in a series of installments on this blog that are discussing some of the issues arising in the aftermath of the long global Ponzi scheme of Bernard L. Madoff. Installments 3 through 8 and Installment 10 of this series focused on the specific concerns of charities that were victims of Madoff and similar schemes. It generally advocated that every charity should respond pro-actively in the wake of the Madoff scandal and the current adverse economic climate. Such action should include a filing of its Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) as promptly as practicable with appropriate disclosures, whether or not it was a Madoff stakeholder itself. All potential stakeholders should consult professional advisors promptly to have their positions evaluated. 

This Installment 14 is designed to compare and contrast the most recent Forms 990 filed with the IRS for fiscal 2008 by two of the most significant and respected charities that invested with Madoff: Hadassah, The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc. (“Hadassah”) and Yeshiva University (“Yeshiva”). While the missions of Hadassah and Yeshiva (collectively, the “Charities”) are different, they provide a basis for comparison, and share as part of their missions the advancement of education and Jewish awareness in the United States and Israel. For disclosure purposes, readers are advised that the spouse of the author of this blog post has been a Life Member of Hadassah for many years.

Concerns about profound financial and other impacts on these Charities from their investments with Madoff were published soon after the Madoff scandal became public in December 2008.  For example, an article by Stewart Ain entitled “Hadassah Reveals $130 Million Windfall from Madoff,” was published in The Jewish Week on January 14, 2009 (the “Ain Article”). A more recent article on Hadassah and its involvement with Madoff that contains some is “Woman Tells of Affair with Madoff in New Book,” by Diana B. Henriques and Stephanie Strom, published in The New York Times on August 13, 2009 (the “Henriques/Strom Article”). An article about the impact of Madoff on Yeshiva entitled “Betrayed by Madoff, Yeshiva U. Adds a Lesson,” by Javier C. Hernandez was published in The New York Times on December, 23, 2008 (the “Hernandez Article”). 

Several weeks ago, the charity information website GuideStar posted the Hadassah Form 990 for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2008 (the “2007 Hadassah Form 990”). This past weekend the Website posted the Yeshiva Form 990 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (the “2007 Yeshiva Form 990” and collectively with the 2007 Hadassah Form 990, the “2007 Forms 990”).

. 

This blog series has already covered the newly-designed Form 990 for 2008 (the “2008 Form 990”) that requires 501(c)(3) entities to provide greatly expanded disclosure through answering questions that require “yes” or ‘no” responses about governance and business operations of charities. Questions that are answered “no” require explanation in the 2008 Form 990.

One of the questions for each of the Charities that would have required a response in the 2008 Form 990 (but not the 2007 Forms 990 recently filed with the IRS by the Charities) is whether the respective Board of Trustees and Audit Committee reviewed the 2007 Form 990 prior to its filing with the IRS. Because both Hadassah and Yeshiva have fiscal years other than the calendar year, they were able to use the old Form 990 for 2007. 

Some circumstances differ, and some are similar, for the Charities. As will be shown in the table below, it is my view that the 2007 Yeshiva  Form 990 has significantly greater disclosure and transparency relative to Madoff than the 2007 Hadassah Form 990. Either of the divergent approaches to disclosure chosen by each of the Charities in its 2007 Forms 990 may be compliant and supportable and were reviewed by the same “Big Four” accounting firm. However, this blog series has strongly recommended that early and complete transparency is advisable to maximize the value of utilizing the Form 990 in rebuilding public confidence in a charity that was affected by Madoff. Earlier disclosure will also get the “bad news” out into the open faster and allow the charity to move on. I believe that Yeshiva has been more successful than Hadassah in using its 2007 Form 990 for this purpose. 

The following table will highlight a comparison of some of the relevant factors drawn from the respective 2007 Forms 990 of the Charities that led to the views of the author. 

A COMPARISON OF HADASSAH AND YESHIVA 2007 FORMS 990

(Information in the Hadassah and Yeshiva columns is from their respective 2007 Form 990 unless otherwise noted; readers may access the 2007 Forms 990 by visiting GuideStar and completing a free online registration. Other noted sources in the table have the Internet links designated in the foregoing article.)

[To be continued in Installment 15]

(With appreciation to Michael J. Kline, Esq., for contributing this entry and for his on-going analysis of the concerns of Madoff stakeholders)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link