|
Post by newfieguy74 on Aug 6, 2024 7:49:56 GMT -5
This article was from today. The court hearing was Friday. Interestingly, the Judge's order: "Parties are ordered to engage in direct discussions where, in order to be meaningful, an accounting is to be provided to the Plaintiff. The direct discussions shall take place in person with the attendance of the parties and their representatives at a mutually convenient location in New England."
I have no inside information, but I am a lawyer and I've been to court thousands of times. The vibe I get from this order is (and I could be wrong): "Ok, we have hurt feelings, verbal agreements, liquidity issues, bad communication, and maybe sloppy bookkeeping. Please sit down face to face and figure this out. This isn't a case that should go to trial."
|
|
|
Post by alum on Aug 6, 2024 8:29:39 GMT -5
This article was from today. The court hearing was Friday. Interestingly, the Judge's order: "Parties are ordered to engage in direct discussions where, in order to be meaningful, an accounting is to be provided to the Plaintiff. The direct discussions shall take place in person with the attendance of the parties and their representatives at a mutually convenient location in New England." I have no inside information, but I am a lawyer and I've been to court thousands of times. The vibe I get from this order is (and I could be wrong): "Ok, we have hurt feelings, verbal agreements, liquidity issues, bad communication, and maybe sloppy bookkeeping. Please sit down face to face and figure this out. This isn't a case that should go to trial." Newfie, I think that lawyers in small firms doing comp, PI, family and summary process cases are used to judges who hold up ruling on their motions in order to force the parties to settle. I am not sure these big firm folks like getting pushed around like this.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 6, 2024 8:36:03 GMT -5
How sad it is to be going through this anguishing process at age 90. There shouldn’t be such confusion about how the project was to be completed
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Aug 6, 2024 9:26:25 GMT -5
This article was from today. The court hearing was Friday. Interestingly, the Judge's order: "Parties are ordered to engage in direct discussions where, in order to be meaningful, an accounting is to be provided to the Plaintiff. The direct discussions shall take place in person with the attendance of the parties and their representatives at a mutually convenient location in New England." I have no inside information, but I am a lawyer and I've been to court thousands of times. The vibe I get from this order is (and I could be wrong): "Ok, we have hurt feelings, verbal agreements, liquidity issues, bad communication, and maybe sloppy bookkeeping. Please sit down face to face and figure this out. This isn't a case that should go to trial." Newfie, I think that lawyers in small firms doing comp, PI, family and summary process cases are used to judges who hold up ruling on their motions in order to force the parties to settle. I am not sure these big firm folks like getting pushed around like this. Maybe, but the best judges know when to give lawyers (even from large firms) and their clients the opportunity to turn down the temperature and save face. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 6, 2024 10:08:19 GMT -5
I suppose I am in a glass house and shouldn't throw stones but this is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, IMHO.
We have a very smart alum whose heart was/is (?) in the right place and in a position to donate multiple millions of dollars to an institution that he loves. On the other side, we have (presumably) also highly educated people representing the College that they and we all love.
You'd think they could all sync both their brains and their hearts and make this go away.
My question is, the College indefinitely postponed the grand opening party because of the unpleasantness but then became reality in May. What was the catalyst to make that happen? Was this an effort by the College to make amends? Whatever the rationale, Neil was there but don't believe any SCOTUS justices were in attendance (but considering what's become public lately, not a surprise, though likely very disappointing for Neil).
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 6, 2024 16:00:11 GMT -5
From my recollection of Prior's complaint, his gift was a restricted gift, in that it was to be used for the performing arts center. Holy Cross treated the gift as fungible, and used some of the amount for other purposes. Prior claimed that if HC had treated it as a restricted gift, then the monies could have been invested over the several years that transpired between his donation and the start of construction. This would have increased the gift amount.
If Prior is correct in his claim, then, IMO, HC breached its fiducial duty. Perhaps this is why the magistrate judge has directed HC to provide Prior with the accounting that he has long sought.
Again, IMO, HC seems to be most reluctant to have the accounting be seen in the light of day. Why?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 6, 2024 16:30:27 GMT -5
It does seem as though this does not "add up."
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Aug 6, 2024 19:10:56 GMT -5
If Prior gave $25mm to HC and the project cost $25,000,001 how could anyone say HC did not spend all his $$$ on the project he specified? I suppose this would not hold if other donors committed $$$ specifically for the project
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 6, 2024 20:23:21 GMT -5
If Prior gave $25mm to HC and the project cost $25,000,001 how could anyone say HC did not spend all his $$$ on the project he specified? I suppose this would not hold if other donors committed $$$ specifically for the project The recitation below is from my memory of Prior's claims. 1.) Prior's gift totaled $25 million; $18 million of which was immediately transferred to the College. I recall there was a subsequent payment of several million. 2.) The College asked Prior for a gift to help fund Luth, which he did. IIRC, this second gift was for under $5 million. In total, Prior gave the College about $25 million, but the College said he was still on the hook for $5-7 million that was still outstanding from his promised $25 million total gift. 3.) Prior on several occasions asked the College for an accounting statement fier the $18 million. The College never provided such. 4.) As the official dedication neared (Prior had commissioned and paid for a musical work by HC's noted professor of music) two unidentified members of the BoT demanded that Prior send the remaining $5 million of his promised gift. Prior said he could not do that as quickly as they wanted, i.e., he did not have $5 million in petty cash sitting around. Prior claimed it would take several days to come up with the money. Before he could do so, the two members of the BoT basically cancelled the dedication and the concert. Invitations had been sent, and acceptances received. 5.) Prior then sued the College. ------------ The performing arts center cost over $100 million; there were other donors. As lead donor, he was rewarded with naming rights. IIRC, Prior was a member of the BoT at the time that Fr. B (and the BoT) announced a policy that there would be no new construction, e.g., Luth, The Jo, Joyce, unless the College had raised 60 (?), 65 (?) percent of the total project cost. What Prior appears to suspect is that some (all?) of his $18 million was siphoned off to help pay for Luth, so construction of Luth could start. If so, Prior then asserts that if his gift had remained in a restricted fund, the $18 million would have increased in value because it would invested short-term The HC faculty apparently read Prior's complaint early-on which gave rise to a widespread rumor that VR took it upon himself to address at a town hall meeting. The rumor apparently was that HC was in a dire financial situation because it gave Prior an ultimatum, 'pay up in several days', or the dedication would be cancelled. (The College subsequently said it was only postponed.) Before P:rior could gather up the $5 million. the College cancelled the concert. A trustee's misappropriation of funds is a felony in Massachusetts, and most everywhere else. If indeed there was a misappropriation, this reflects badly on the College's auditors, (KPMG), or if the College mis-represented to the auditors, this reflects even worse on the College administration, and the BoT's audit committee.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 6, 2024 20:41:06 GMT -5
I will add one more point.
Prior's personal wealth is managed by Harvard, more specifically Harvard Management Co., the entity that runs Harvard's multi-billion endowment. One can be damn sure that HMC provides him with a regular accounting of his wealth.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 6, 2024 21:55:04 GMT -5
OK, Phreek, what’s your theory for having the gala in May with Prior there and all smiles?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 7, 2024 7:28:58 GMT -5
OK, Phreek, what’s your theory for having the gala in May with Prior there and all smiles? As the saying goes, 'The Lord works in mysterious ways.' Which is my shorthand for 'I have no [expletive] idea.' I cannot explain why the College will not give him an accounting of its administration of his gift, The magistrate judge basically seems to have said to the College that there can be no conversations / arbitration between the two parties until the College first provides an accounting statement. I have a faint recollection that Prior acknowledged in his claim that HC did provide an accounting at one point, and it was either a partial accounting or didn't show what he thought it should show; i.e., his gift amount apparently sat there without being invested. Prior's gift was announced in Feb. 2013. My recollection is that construction started in 2020. I think Prior's expectation was that the College would invest the donated amount (which was less than the full $25 million promised) in the interim. Perhaps the College explicitly stated it would do so. The gift had an arbitration clause, because the College is relying on that as a defense. I will note that the College's assistant treasurer and chief investment officer resigned in 2020, and took a position as chief financial officer of St. John's High School in Shrewsbury. I believe at the time he was the highest paid employee of the College. A graduate, class of '00, he had been appointed to those positions at HC in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 7, 2024 8:05:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Aug 7, 2024 8:12:15 GMT -5
Jarring headline. Whatever the reality, the headline is a terrible look for HC.
|
|
|
Post by newfieguy74 on Aug 7, 2024 10:23:35 GMT -5
"A trustee's misappropriation of funds is a felony in Massachusetts, and most everywhere else."
As far as I know no one has alleged criminal wrongdoing. It would be one thing if a Trustee took some of Mr. Prior's money and went to Foxwoods or used it to buy a Lexus, but that's not what's being alleged. I think what he's claiming is that HC breached an agreement to segregate and invest the money he donated. There may be a breach of contract, or a breach of fiduciary duty, or bad bookkeeping but no crime. It seems like the cancelled concert (to which Prior was apparently going to invite three SCOTUS judges) was the accelerant that fueled Prior's anger. This is a case screaming for a mediated solution. Not that many cases go to trial, and judges don't like to waste their time on cases that should be settled.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Aug 7, 2024 11:47:28 GMT -5
newfieguy74? Wow! Where is your office located?
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Aug 7, 2024 12:16:22 GMT -5
Was the original concert cancelled because of any possible disagreement with HC regarding the three SCOTUS judges he was inviting (certainly Roberts and Thomas among the three) ?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 7, 2024 12:32:42 GMT -5
About 99% certain the postponement had nothing to do with the SCOTUS justices and everything to do with the larger dispute.
As for their presumed lack of attendance in May, I suspect they would not want to participate in an ongoing issue rolling around in the courts. Not that it would ever get to them, just that it is unseemly and all the perk stuff discussions surrounding the Supremes.
|
|
|
Post by 78purple on Aug 8, 2024 12:37:37 GMT -5
Jarring headline. Whatever the reality, the headline is a terrible look for HC. I'd like to believe there are enough intelligent people in the room to make this go away, immediately
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 9, 2024 8:13:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Aug 9, 2024 14:07:04 GMT -5
The pillars on the gates at the entrance in the photo should be the same height. The uneven height has bothered me for decades.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 9, 2024 18:00:18 GMT -5
The pillars on the gates at the entrance in the photo should be the same height. The uneven height has bothered me for decades. Symbolizing that one is a lesser (smaller) person for having attended? Was the smaller of the two gates moved from elsewhere? This photo from the Globe.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Aug 9, 2024 19:09:06 GMT -5
Donated by 2 different classes -1907 and 1955(?) - built about 40 years apart.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Aug 9, 2024 20:34:57 GMT -5
Donated by 2 different classes -1907 and 1955(?) - built about 40 years apart. Yes,, I was aware of that. However I don't believe the '07 alums and most of the '55 alums are likely to complain about any alteration of the height& size of the pillars.If cemetery graves can be overturned after 99 years, pillars can be changed. No doubt in their heartfelt love for alma mater they would support any step the administration takes to improve the entry. The pillars should conform in size and height with the taller pillars my preference. Doesn't UC Berkeley have 2 pillars supporting an arch over a center roadway with walkway openings on each side? I was there years ago so my memory might be a bit off. 4 pillars withe two arches, all of equal size would be fine.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Aug 10, 2024 7:10:54 GMT -5
Was responding to Phreek’s post asking if the smaller gate had been moved from another location.
|
|