|
Post by mm67 on Sept 24, 2023 11:38:30 GMT -5
Cases can be intellectually interesting because of the legal issues or factual questions and they can be profitable but when you get to know your client and you see how the subject of litigation affects them personally, you feel for them. I represent individuals or, on occasion, very small businesses. No matter how the client feels going into a case, by the end, they are drained by litigation and almost always want you to find a way to make it go away sooner than later. From the outside looking in, this case resembles a divorce or an ugly intra family dispute over a will. I agree with this. I always tell people that litigation should be a last resort because it is not a great way to solve a dispute. You get a result, but not necessarily justice. I've been involved in probate disputes and I've seen how the death of a parent can re-open old wounds. When people come to me to contest a will I tell them to try and work things out (this advice is rarely followed). Are there lawyers who promote discord and thrive on courtroom battles--yes--but I think this is a small number. If this particular case went to trial my prediction is that both sides would be unhappy. Very well put, counselor.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 24, 2023 15:22:06 GMT -5
C’mon 74, you know the old saying: “99% of lawyers make all the rest look bad!”
Could be worse, “the actuary wanted to be an accountant but didn’t have the personality.”
I’m sure there’s a joke for every occupation but those are the only two that comes to mind right now. 🤷🏻♂️
On a more serious note, I am not sure how to feel about this not finding its way to the media. Prior obviously still cares about Holy Cross or this would have been leaked to the press I would think.
I made sure I didn’t bring it up at the Q&A with Vince Saturday morning,
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Sept 24, 2023 16:11:26 GMT -5
Hope we see white smoke emitting from the Kimball Chimney signaling a peaceful resolution & healing. Our fellow alum, Mr. Prior loves HC& has contributed so much to improve The Cross. Expect the school will reciprocate in kindness & love.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Sept 24, 2023 19:16:28 GMT -5
Have to say that I believe Mr. Prior was right on target with his bold vision for a big PAC opening instead of what we ended up with. Very strange. He certainly seemed quite peeved the way it was handled.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 24, 2023 20:18:28 GMT -5
I guess $18M-$25M just doesn't get you what it used to.
More seriously, while I am reluctant to just assume everything in the legal complaint is 100% accurate, it sure sounds like the College didn't do right by him and he has every right to be upset with his alma mater.
Over the weekend, a couple of Classmate-lawyers best-guessed that the lawsuit was really just an effort to force the College into talking with him and come to some mutually agreeable understandings. For whatever reason, they just didn't think he really wanted his money back. I hope they are right.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 26, 2023 15:40:51 GMT -5
Perhaps Neil Prior remembers Cooper. Cooper amended her complaint to join the BoT as defendants and move the case back to NY. Once the BoT became co-defendants, the case was quickly and quietly settled.
Dr. Helen Boucher surely does not want her reputation sullied by the actions of two or more underlings on the Board.
------------------------
There is an underlying leitmotif in Priors complaint; i.e., the College used his restricted endowment monies (the $18 million) for other purposes, and did not invest the funds. In other words, Prior's gift became fungible money.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Sept 26, 2023 18:04:42 GMT -5
All revenue is general revenue
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 26, 2023 19:21:13 GMT -5
All revenue is general revenue I'll defer to the financial gurus on this board, especially those in academic circles. 1. I'm not sure a donation for a specific project is "general revenue." At least, I seriously doubt it as others have posted with some frequency that our endowment is not entirely available for general purposes. 2. One part of the complaint I think we can take to the bank (an appropriate metaphor, I think), that Prior's donation was specifically for the PPAC. And note that the first "P" in "PPAC" is for Prior. 3. Do you or others believe that if someone donated to, say The Jo, that TPTB could simply take that money and give it out for scholarships, athletics, academics, Worcester students, or otherwise? Now, I have been a believer for years that if, say, the Crusader Athletics Fund was really, really successful like $10 million, that perhaps the College might say "hey, we can reduce the athletics budget by $4,$5, $6 million because we have this extra money." But generally, I have a hard time believing "all revenue is general revenue."
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Sept 26, 2023 20:00:44 GMT -5
You capture it at the end of your post. Those receiving the donations designated for specific purposes can just reduce the money otherwise allocated for those initiatives. Take the insidious state lotteries for example, sold to the public with the pitch that the money will go to “education” or “scholarships”. Decades later, with tens (maybe hundreds) of billions having been raised by these schemes do you think education has improved in this country? I do understand that the situation is not as exact as I suggest- for example I donate to the Crusader Athletics Fund and maybe that sends a signal to TPTB that HC supporters want to see HC invest in athletics.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 28, 2023 7:37:48 GMT -5
Endowment gifts are not general revenue.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Sept 28, 2023 8:03:59 GMT -5
While I don't subscribe to KY's generic statement that "all revenue is general revenue," despite "restricted giving," which presumably Prior's was and shouldn't have gone into the general kitty (if it did, he implies that in the complaint, but doesn't quite spell that out), I think KY and I are in agreement that funding one thing reduces or eliminates the need for general funds for that specific purpose and can go elsewhere. The fund for scholarships that's been pushed the last 2-3 years, while restricted for that purpose, means that the general fund can/might be able to put less money towards scholarships and instead, for example, go to pay the faculty more (or the investment folks! )
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Sept 28, 2023 8:18:11 GMT -5
The 2023/24 season schedule of the Prior Performing Arts Center just arrived. Lovely glossy magazine loaded with photographs. A great advertisement for HC. Going old school with spring musical Oklahoma Not sure if it was intentional, but last year a spring musical coincided with winter homecoming and got some advertising as a homecoming event
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 28, 2023 9:02:14 GMT -5
I had a conversation with a classmate who has a senior position at a university along the banks of the Charles. And the discussion was Princeton's endowment, which is huge. Princeton sets its annual distribution (appropriation) of the endowment at five percent of the total endowment value. Princeton, as do most other schools, returns a portion of the endowment distribution back to the endowment because the distributed funds cannot be spent for the purpose intended. This is becoming a major problem for those institutions with restricted funds with very high values.
An example from Holy Cross. I am 95 percent certain that the cost of the annual Hanify-Howland Memorial Lecture is paid from the annual distribution of a restricted endowment fund. During COVID, there were no lecture(s), and the funds that would have otherwise paid for such lecture(s) were returned to this restricted endowment fund. They could not be used to help pay Chesney's salary, or for new stained glass windows in the chapel, or financial aid for students.
My classmate said that the colleges and universities are seeking ways to loosen the restrictive binds for some of these funds, but it is legally difficult to do so. That may be the case with Duke men's basketball, where a restricted endowment to support men's hoops was set up to honor Coach K. As I understand the endowment, none of the funds can pay for the salary of the head coach. The Legacy Fund (IIRC, that's the fund's name) has a value in excess of $120 million. $120 million x 4.5% = $5.4 million annual distribution. So the scollie for every rostered player is paid out of the distribution, plus scollies for the team managers, ... let's say 20 scollies at $80,000 = $1.6 million. I still have $3.8 million to spend. I believe Duke may now be paying part/all of the compensation of assistant coaches out of the fund. And the fund may be paying for capital projects as well. But Duke cannot use the Legacy Fund to pay any costs associated with women's basketball.
The notion that all revenue is general revenue does not apply to the Federal government. The fuel taxes that motorists pay go into a Highway Trust Fund. Monies distributed from that trust fund cannot be used by Phreek to buy more rockets because Phreek can always use a few more rockets.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Sept 28, 2023 9:51:48 GMT -5
I had a conversation with a classmate who has a senior position at a university along the banks of the Charles. And the discussion was Princeton's endowment, which is huge. Princeton sets its annual distribution (appropriation) of the endowment at five percent of the total endowment value. Princeton, as do most other schools, returns a portion of the endowment distribution back to the endowment because the distributed funds cannot be spent for the purpose intended. This is becoming a major problem for those institutions with restricted funds with very high values. An example from Holy Cross. I am 95 percent certain that the cost of the annual Hanify-Howland Memorial Lecture is paid from the annual distribution of a restricted endowment fund. During COVID, there were no lecture(s), and the funds that would have otherwise paid for such lecture(s) were returned to this restricted endowment fund. They could not be used to help pay Chesney's salary, or for new stained glass windows in the chapel, or financial aid for students. My classmate said that the colleges and universities are seeking ways to loosen the restrictive binds for some of these funds, but it is legally difficult to do so. That may be the case with Duke men's basketball, where a restricted endowment to support men's hoops was set up to honor Coach K. As I understand the endowment, none of the funds can pay for the salary of the head coach. The Legacy Fund (IIRC, that's the fund's name) has a value in excess of $120 million. $120 million x 4.5% = $5.4 million annual distribution. So the scollie for every rostered player is paid out of the distribution, plus scollies for the team managers, ... let's say 20 scollies at $80,000 = $1.6 million. I still have $3.8 million to spend. I believe Duke may now be paying part/all of the compensation of assistant coaches out of the fund. And the fund may be paying for capital projects as well. But Duke cannot use the Legacy Fund to pay any costs associated with women's basketball. The notion that all revenue is general revenue does not apply to the Federal government. The fuel taxes that motorists pay go into a Highway Trust Fund. Monies distributed from that trust fund cannot be used by Phreek to buy more rockets because Phreek can always use a few more rockets. 1) Duke can use the 3.8 million for players salaries NIL compensation. I wonder how that endowment distribution affects Title IX. Restricted or not, that's $5 million a year the school is spending on men's basketball that I assume would have to be offset on the women's side 2) "Kind of" in terms of general fund. Things only become an issue if the feds decide to spend less on highways than that tax pulls in. If I spend $2.5 million dollars on roads every year, and the gas tax brings in $1 million, I can double the gas tax and take that extra million and buy a rocket because I suddenly have an extra million in the general fund that I didn't spend on roads. I have little general confidence in Congress right now, but I do have confidence in Congress' ability to play a shell game
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Sept 28, 2023 10:00:20 GMT -5
The 2023/24 season schedule of the Prior Performing Arts Center just arrived. Lovely glossy magazine loaded with photographs. A great advertisement for HC. Going old school with spring musical Oklahoma Not sure if it was intentional, but last year a spring musical coincided with winter homecoming and got some advertising as a homecoming event A great lineup. I'm planning to go see the amazing Rhiannon Giddens in the spring.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 3, 2023 11:34:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 3, 2023 12:32:11 GMT -5
Seeking mediation or arbitration is a good idea. It's where many cases are settled because you have a neutral party candidly making the parties aware of the realities/obstacles of litigation.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 3, 2023 15:22:44 GMT -5
BTW, HC is represented by the head of the litigation department at Hemenway & Barnes, who is also an HC grad. The choice might have been intentional, to get someone who knows and loves HC.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Oct 4, 2023 7:24:59 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent, but I find it interesting that the school, which traditionally had had legal work done by a Worcester law firm is now using a Boston firm
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 4, 2023 7:32:28 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent, but I find it interesting that the school, which traditionally had had legal work done by a Worcester law firm is now using a Boston firm And a different Boston firm handled the Bill Gibbons litigation. My sense is that HC's general counsel looks for the best firm/attorney to handle a particular matter, which is wise.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Oct 4, 2023 7:42:13 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent, but I find it interesting that the school, which traditionally had had legal work done by a Worcester law firm is now using a Boston firm IIRC, it was a Boston firm that represented HC in Cooper. Prior seems to be really pissed.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 4, 2023 7:52:37 GMT -5
Bit of a tangent, but I find it interesting that the school, which traditionally had had legal work done by a Worcester law firm is now using a Boston firm IIRC, it was a Boston firm that represented HC in Cooper. Prior seems to be really pissed. Yes, filing this lawsuit in federal court was the act of someone who is very pissed. But if HC handles this correctly, which includes the mending of fences and the assuaging of hurt feelings, probably through mediation, there could be a good result for both parties. Or not. I predict this case never goes to trial, but I've been wrong before.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Oct 4, 2023 8:31:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 4, 2023 9:50:13 GMT -5
HC wants to go to mediation rather than to a court trial. Is that just a money saving measure or something else?
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Oct 4, 2023 10:18:39 GMT -5
HC wants to go to mediation rather than to a court trial. Is that just a money saving measure or something else? It looks like the parties negotiated a mediation/arbitration clause so Prior wanted it too. Generally, this is a far less expensive way to resolve a dispute. Mediation is not binding, but arbitration is. Courts generally enforce these clauses because they are good ways to resolve disputes and because it saves on court resources. I will be interested in reading the plaintiff's response. HC's memorandum is well done. It suggests that CP repeatedly acknowledged he had to mediate.
|
|