Appeals Court Sets Standards For (c)(4) Social Welfare Groups

“Substantial” nonqualifying activity prevents exempt status; if followed, ruling could revolutionize political world

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an Accountable Care Organization providing benefits to private parties as a “substantial” part of its activities is not eligible for exemption as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization.  The ruling is the first modern appellate court ruling rejecting the claim that an organization can qualify for (c)(4) status so long as its “primary” activity is promoting the public good. 

Bank Trustee of Charitable Trust Breaches Duty of Trust to Beneficiary

Absent evidence to the contrary, commercial loan between trustee and beneficiary of trust was presumptively fraudulent

A commercial loan between a bank trustee of a charitable trust and the charity that is the beneficiary of the trust is presumptively fraudulent without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, an appellate court in Illinois has ruled.  The Court has reversed a trial court decision authorizing the bank to proceed with an action to collect on the note and granted the charity’s motion to rescind the note for breach of fiduciary duty.

Volunteer not protected against intentional acts

Dorothy Were, a volunteer for the Luo Women in the United States Corp. in Maryland, was found liable for wrongfully filing corporate documents on behalf of the organization, enjoined from acting on behalf of the organization and ordered to pay Luo $21,000 in legal fees and $8000 in compensatory damages.  

University Enjoined from Investigating Trustee Until It Advances Expenses for Trustee’s Defense

Court enjoins Penn State from continuing investigation of trustee without advancing legal fees under indemnification bylaw

Penn State University has been prohibited from proceeding with an internal investigation of the conduct of a University trustee without advancing his legal expenses.  A trial court in Pennsylvania has held that the trustee falls clearly within the protections required by the indemnification provisions of the University’s bylaws and has rejected the University’s defenses in part because they were “specious.”