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 Kline writes:

This Installment raises some questions relating to the inclusion of the Defendant Foundations, which the Trustee had sued for recovery of “fictitious profits” and principal, as parties to the global Settlement Agreement between Picard and the Wilpons. Installment 75 (Part 1) of this blog series, which should be read together with this Installment, discussed the “Schedule 1 Foundations” and concerns about their inclusion in the Settlement Agreement. (Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in Installment 75.)   

Unlike the Schedule 1 Foundations, the Defendant Foundations are defendants in the Litigation, and each of them is a signatory to the Settlement Agreement, with Fred Wilpon having signed as Director for the Wilpon Family Foundation and Saul B. Katz having signed as Director for the Katz Family Foundation. Moreover, the Defendant Foundations are listed on Schedule 2 of the Settlement Agreement as recipients of transfers from Madoff in excess of principal, as are the other defendants in the Litigation. 

However, the fact that the Defendant Foundations are literally “on the same page” as the other defendants in the Litigation, including Fred Wilpon and Saul B. Katz as individuals defendants, should not finish the analysis as to whether the Defendant Foundations are properly parties to the Settlement Agreement. The analysis utilized in Installment 75 for the Schedule 1 Foundations should be considered for the Defendant Foundations as well.

Simply stated, there is a possible dichotomy between the interests of the Defendant Foundations and the individuals who occupy the same status with respect to the Defendant Foundations as the “Fiduciary Defendants” of the Schedule 1 Foundations. (Such individuals will be defined as Fiduciary Defendants with respect to the Defendant Foundations.) While more subtle in the case of the Defendant Foundations, there is a potential divergence of interests that calls for analysis of (i) the duty of loyalty of fiduciaries and (iii) the avoidance of conflicts of interest and prohibited “private benefit and inurement” that was discussed respecting the Schedule 1 Foundations.  To reiterate, as indicated in the IRS Compliance Guide,

A private foundation is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of benefits, including non-monetary benefits, to individuals or organizations. The intent is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is substantial, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.

Excise taxes for such violations can also be imposed by the IRS on both the non-complying private foundation and its fiduciaries. Basically, the allegation could be made that the inclusion of the Defendant Foundations in the Settlement Agreement benefited on a monetary and/or a non-monetary basis their respective Fiduciary Defendants in settling the Litigation on the most favorable terms on a global basis. 

Query, did the Trustee and the Fiduciary Defendants explore reasonably the question as to whether the Defendant Foundations could have and should have made a better deal by themselves outside of the framework of the global Settlement Agreement? Installment 60 of this blog series (and prior Installments linked therein) give examples of the flexibility and financial accommodations that the Trustee has provided in other cases of charities that realized fictitious profits in the Madoff scheme and would have suffered serious or even irreparable adversity if they were to be fully clawed back.

In conclusion, in the cases of both the Schedule 1 Foundations and the Defendant Foundations, greater scrutiny of their participation in the Settlement Agreement may be called for in order to promote an appearance of propriety for the Settlement Agreement and the Fiduciary Defendants. In addition to the questions at the end of Installment 75, query whether the Trustee, as the party moving for approval of the Settlement Agreement, has a responsibility to be pro-actively bringing the matters of the Involved Foundations to the attention of Judge Rakoff for inclusion in the court’s full and fair review and approval of the Settlement Agreement in this widely-followed Litigation.

(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 77)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael Kline writes:

This Installment addresses some of the effects on, and implications for, certain charitable private foundations (collectively, the “Involved Foundations”) and their respective officers, directors, trustees and foundation managers (collectively, the “Fiduciaries”) under the proposed settlement agreement dated April 13, 2012 (the “Settlement Agreement”), between Madoff Trustee Irving Picard and the numerous defendants, constituting the Wilpon-Katz-Mets individual, business, family trust and charitable interests (collectively, the “Wilpons”). Installment 74 and prior postings in this blog series discussed certain aspects of the Settlement Agreement. 

The Settlement Agreement, which would terminate all existing litigation between the Trustee and the Wilpons (the “Litigation”), is subject to the approval of Federal District Judge Jed S. Rakoff at a hearing scheduled for 4 PM on May 15, 2012.  Further information, including Forms 990-PF filed with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), respecting each of the Involved Foundations and their Fiduciaries may be found on the GuideStar Web site.

A recurring theme in this blog series has been the relatively inconsistent and sometimes perplexing manner in which the Trustee has dealt with charities that invested with Madoff. Installment 60 and prior Installments discussed some of the differences in the way Picard was dealing with the Judy & Fred Wilpon Family Foundation (the “Wilpon Family Foundation”) and the Iris & Saul Katz Family Foundation (the “Katz Family Foundation” and collectively with the Wilpon Family Foundation, the “Defendant Foundations”), as contrasted to other public charities and charitable private grant-making foundations. 

The Defendant Foundations are listed on Schedule 2 to the Settlement Agreement, which is the “Summary of Six-Year Transfers from BLMIS [Madoff] to Defendants in Excess of Principal,” respecting persons subject to “clawback” efforts by the Trustee of “fictitious profits” and principal. A number of the Fiduciaries of each of the Defendant Foundations also are defendants listed on Schedule 2 for whom the Trustee was seeking clawback. The Defendant Foundations will be discussed more fully in a future Installment in this blog series. 

The remaining Involved Foundations (the “Schedule 1 Foundations”) appear on Schedule 1 to the Settlement Agreement, which is the “Summary of Allowed Net Equity Claims Against the BLMIS Estate.” Therefore, the Schedule 1 Foundations are not defendants in the Litigation; nor are they signatories to the Settlement Agreement. They are claimants that have been recognized to be entitled to share in the funds recovered by the Trustee in the Madoff bankruptcy.

The Schedule 1 Foundations include, among others, The Dayle H & Michael Katz Foundation Inc. (the “Michael Katz Foundation"). Notably, each of the Schedule 1 Foundations has one or more Fiduciaries who, in one capacity and/or another, is (i) a defendant in the Litigation, (ii) listed on Schedule 2 to the Settlement Agreement and (iii) a signatory to the Settlement Agreement. The Foundation Fiduciaries of each of the Schedule 1 Foundations have an aggregate larger amount of clawback exposure on Schedule 2 than the allowed net equity claim of the related Schedule 1 Foundation (a “Schedule 1 Foundation Claim”). Except for the Michael Katz Foundation, the amount of  the Schedule 1 Foundation Claim of each Schedule 1 Foundation is relatively small, less than $100,000. In the case of the Michael Katz Foundation, however, the Schedule 1 Foundation Claim is $617,000, while the maximum aggregate exposure reflected on Schedule 2 for clawback against the Michael Katz Foundation Fiduciaries exceeds that amount.

In the Settlement Agreement, each Schedule 1 Foundation Claim falls within the definition of a “Defendant Net Equity Claim” under Section 1(c) of the Settlement Agreement. Each of the Fiduciaries who is also a signatory to the Settlement Agreement (a “Fiduciary Defendant”) is defined as a “Defendant” in the Settlement Agreement, who, under Section 2(a) of the Settlement Agreement, has agreed, among other things, to assign all Defendant Net Equity Claims (which would include a Schedule 1 Foundation Claim) to the Trustee.  In addition, each Fiduciary Defendant has represented and warranted under Section 6(b) of the Settlement Agreement that he or she has full power, authority and legal right to assign his or her respective Defendant Net Equity Claim (which would include a Schedule 1 Foundation Claim).

The foregoing acts by the Fiduciary Defendants may be problematic. In effect, each of the Schedule 1 Foundation Claims, which would otherwise be a future unencumbered expectancy to be paid to the respective Schedule 1 Foundation by the Trustee, is being assigned under the Settlement Agreement to the Trustee to fund a portion of the monetary clawback exposure of its respective Fiduciary Defendants.   As stated earlier, the Schedule 1 Foundations are not defendants in the Litigation; nor are they directly signatories to the Settlement Agreement.

This dichotomy between the interests of Schedule 1 Foundations and their respective Fiduciary Defendants sets up a classic divergence of interests that calls for consideration of compliance requirements flowing from the duty of loyalty of fiduciaries and the potential for conflicts of interest. Moreover, the question of potential prohibited “private benefit and inurement” respecting the Schedule 1 Foundations under IRS rules can be raised as indicated in an IRS Compliance Guide:

A private foundation is prohibited from allowing more than an insubstantial accrual of benefits, including non-monetary benefits, to individuals or organizations. The intent is to ensure that a tax-exempt organization serves a public interest, not a private one. If a private benefit is substantial, it could jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status.

In addition, no part of an organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of a private shareholder or individual. This means that an organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to accrue to insiders. An example of prohibited inure­ment would include payment of unreasonable compensation to an insider. An insider is a person such as an officer, director, or a key employee who has a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization. Any amount of inurement may be grounds for loss of tax-exempt status.

In addition to loss of the organization’s section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, activities constituting inurement may result in the imposition of self-dealing excise taxes on individuals benefiting from certain transactions with a private foundation.

The laws regarding duty of loyalty and conflicts of interest of fiduciaries and the IRS rules regarding private benefit and inurement are highly complex. Presumably, each of the Schedule 1 Foundations and its respective Fiduciaries would have been well advised to seek separate guidance and counsel as to their respective rights and obligations under the Settlement Agreement and its impact on a Schedule 1 Foundation Claim and the clawback exposure of the Defendant Fiduciaries.

Query, should Judge Rakoff be inquiring into these Schedule 1 Foundation matters as part of his review and approval of the Settlement Agreement?  Should the Schedule 1 Foundations properly be dropped from Schedule 1 of the Settlement Agreement altogether in order to resolve the potential issues? If the Schedule 1 Foundations were to be excluded from involvement in the Settlement Agreement, should the Defendant Fiduciaries be expected to provide substitute funding sources? Whether these questions will be addressed remains to be seen.

(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 76]

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link