NRA Case Positive Spin: Letitia James

Both sides of the dissolution lawsuit involving the New York Attorney General and the NRA are trying to put a positive spin on Judge Joel Cohen’s ruling yesterday. Below is the spin put on it by NY Attorney General Letitia James.

Letitia James in New York City on 19 November 2019.
Reuters photo

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after Justice Joel Cohen of the New York County State Supreme Court rejected a second round of motions brought forward by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer as they sought to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Attorney General James against the organization in August 2020:

“Today, the court affirmed my office’s right to pursue its long-standing claims that fraud, abuse, and greed permeate through the NRA and its senior leadership. While we’re heartened that the judge rejected the NRA’s attempts to thwart most of the claims in our case against the NRA, we are disappointed that the judge ruled against the dissolution portion of the case. We are considering our legal options with respect to this ruling. We remain committed to enforcing New York law regardless of how powerful any individual or organization may be.”

In today’s decision, the court let stand all of the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) claims of self-dealing, abuse, and unlawful conduct by LaPierre, who has been at the helm of the NRA for three decades. Similarly, the court rebuked the efforts by Frazer to dismiss him from the case, finding that OAG’s allegations that Frazer violated his obligations as the NRA’s General Counsel for failing to address conflicts of interest and respond to whistleblowers who alerted the NRA to systemic financial wrongdoing were valid. The court also held that OAG’s claims against the NRA for false regulatory filings and failing to address conflicts of interest will proceed. 

As an attorney friend mentioned to me yesterday, Judge Cohen’s ruling could be appealed. James is acknowledging this in her statement where she says they “are considering our legal options”. That said, I’d be a little surprised if they do appeal it. A partial win is better than no win at all.

NRA Will Not Be Dissolved

Judge Joel Cohen issued a ruling today in the New York Attorney General’s dissolution suit against the National Rifle Association. He dismissed four of the 18 causes of action in the amended complaint brought by Attorney General Letitia James but allowed the remain 14 to continue. Specifically, Judge Cohen dismissed the first, second, 16th, and 18th causes of actions.

The first and second causes of action sought the dissolution of the NRA. In the first cause of action, the NRA was said to have “conducted its business in a persistently illegal manner and abused its powers contrary to the public policy of the State of New York by operating without effective oversight or control by its officers and directors” which was grounds for dissolution under N-PCL § 1109(b)(1). The second cause alleged that “directors or members in control of the NRA have looted or wasted the corporate assets, have perpetuated the corporation solely for their personal benefit, or have otherwise acted in an illegal, oppressive or fraudulent manner.” This would be grounds for dissolution under N-PCL § 1109(b)(1).

He wrote in dismissing those two causes of action:

In arguing for dissolution, the Attorney General’s allegations fail to delineate between the NRA, on the one hand, and its leaders on the other, who acted “without regard to the NRA’s best interests” (see id. ¶ 143 [“LaPierre, together with his direct reports, including Defendants Phillips, Frazer and Powell, instituted a culture of self-dealing, mismanagement, and negligent oversight at the NRA . . . without regard to the NRA’s best interests.”]; id. ¶ 646 [“Despite a conflict of interest and his lack of authority to do so, LaPierre unilaterally determined to place the NRA into bankruptcy to evade a regulatory action in which he was named as a defendant . . . cost[ing] the NRA tens of millions of dollars”]). Conflating the Individual Defendants with the NRA writ large for purposes of dissolution is inappropriate here for the reasons discussed supra. It also ignores the allegations that the wrongdoers in control of the NRA do not necessarily speak for other NRA members, some of whom have tried to instigate reform within the organization but have been met with resistance from entrenched leadership (see, e.g., id. ¶ 491). (emphasis mine)

The 16th cause of action involved the prudent management of institutional funds. This cause of action was dismissed by Judge Cohen as it didn’t properly distinguish between “program-related funds” and “institutional funds”.

The 18th cause of action was specifically against LaPierre, Frazer, Phillips, and Powell. It accused them of common law “unjust enrichment” and sought to recover monies paid to them that were “excessive, unreasonable, and/or unauthorized.” Judge Cohen based his dismissal of this cause of action as it ran afoul of earlier NY Court of Appeals rulings about unjust enrichment. In other words, this was only dismissed due to a technicality.

While the NRA will not be dissolved, this is not to say that the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, and the others are in the clear. The third and fourth causes of action against LaPierre and John Frazer allege breach of fiduciary duty. This was allowed to proceed onwards. Likewise, Judge Cohen found that the allegations contained in the seventh and eighth causes of action which accuse both LaPierre and Frazer of failing to properly administer charitable assets were sufficient to proceed.

The 11th and 14th causes of action were against LaPierre and the NRA respectively. These accuse LaPierre and the NRA of engaging in “unlawful related party transactions.” Judge Cohen found that both claims were sustained.

The 15th cause of action which was allowed to go forward involved violation of the New York whistleblower protections. Judge Cohen said there was sufficient evidence to show that the NRA, Powell, and LaPierre retaliated against whistleblowers and that Frazer was incompetent in carrying out the whistleblower policy. The retaliation against Oliver North as well as the freezing out of directors such as Tim Knight and Esther Schneider from committee assignments is coming back to haunt the NRA.

The final cause of action sustained against the moves by LaPierre and Frazer to have them dismissed is the 17th. That cause of action stated that the NRA and Frazer “made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in the annual reports the organization filed with the Attorney General.” Judge Cohen said that the NRA didn’t contest the falsity of the filings for now and the allegations against Frazer were specific enough that they should continue.

It should be noted that neither Josh Powell nor Woody Phillips sought to have the specific causes of action against them dismissed.

If after all the court proceedings are finished, it could result in the all four of the individual defendants being being barred from the NRA or other New York non-profits and forced repayment of their ill-gotten gains. Moreover, I can foresee a forced restructuring of the NRA in such a way as to prevent the abuses we have seen and are now seeing.

The bottom line is while the NRA has escaped dissolution this is not the end of things.

You can read the full 42-page opinion by Judge Cohen below. It makes for interesting reading.

451625 2020 People of the State of v People of the State of DECISION ORDER on 611 by jpr9954 on Scribd

Marshall Moves To Intervene In NRA Dissolution

In September, NY Supreme Court Judge Joel Cohen ruled that Frank Tait and Mario Aguirre did not have standing to bring a Motion to Intervene in the New York Attorney General’s case asking for dissolution of the NRA. Among the things he mentioned at the time in ruling against them was the timeliness issue and that 5% of the members were not part of the Motion. At the time of the hearing, it was mentioned in court that a director of the NRA would be joining the Motion to Intervene but Judge Cohen said he could only rule on what was in front of him

Today, Rocky Marshall, a NRA Director, filed a Motion to Intervene in the case as a defendant, claimant, and counter claimant. New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 720 b (1) gives a director the statutory right to seek relief against a defendant for neglect, mismanagement, or “other violation of his duties in the management and disposition of corporate assets committed to his charge.” A director can also seek relief against a defendant for the loss or waste of corporate assets due to the defendant’s negligence, failure to perform, or other violations of his duties. New York CPLR § 1012 states that Mr. Marshall has an absolute right to intervene based upon NPCL § 720 b (1)

Remember that not only is the NRA a defendant in this case but so are Wayne LaPierre, Woody Phillips, Josh Powell, and John Frazer.

One of the grounds for seeking the Motion to Intervene is:

The Proposed Intervenor seeks to assure that the NRA as an entity has independent, conflict-free counsel. The law firm presently representing the NRA is irreconcilably conflicted and the NRA is alleged by the Attorney General to be controlled by one or more of the individual defendants. Thus no present party or law firm can adequately protect the NRA’s rights as an entity separate from the individual defendants.

The Memorandum of Law that accompanies the Motion to Intervene is quite interesting. It starts out by saying that Letitia James is wrong when she asserts that the NRA cannot be rehabilitated and dissolution is the only answer. It continues to say that the NRA and its leadership are wrong when they say it is nothing more than a political attack and everything is fine. It goes on to say that James cannot prove that dissolution of the NRA would be “beneficial to the NRA’s members”. It continues:

On the other hand, to rule for the Defendants merely requires that the Court hold its nose and swallow their claims that the NRA Board has investigated the Attorney General’s allegations and found nothing wrong, disregarding abundant evidence of the Individual Defendants’ serious breaches of duty and conflicts of interest, some of which is already before the Court.

Mr. Marshall goes on to say that the Board has failed in its fiduciary duties to the NRA and to its members. Problems have been presented to the Board and they have ignored them while also taking no action against the named individuals (LaPierre, Powell, Phillips, and Frazer).

Thus, the Memorandum states the Board should be dissolved because they are not independent of LaPierre and that a receiver be appointed. Mr. Marshall suggests he would be willing to serve as a temporary receiver to get a proper accounting and to elect a new independent board.

As to the old Board and leadership, it must go:

As his proposed Answer says, Mr. Marshall recognizes and appreciates that without this action no meaningful change in the NRA’s governance will likely occur due to Defendant LaPierre’s total control of the executive leadership and his dominance of the Board. To the extent possible Mr. Marshall will work with the Attorney General to reform the NRA’s
leadership for the benefit of all rank-and-file NRA members. Mr. Marshall will pursue recovery of all NRA funds wrongfully paid to the third parties implicated but not sued by the AG, while vigorously opposing the AG’s dissolution claim.

Accompanying the Motion and the Memorandum are 12 exhibits which consist of a proposed answer, numerous emails, NRA Board minutes, Marshall’s bio and resume (which is very impressive), and a compilation of Form 990 data. Rather than go through each of these, I am just going to put the links to them below.

Proposed Answer

Liptak Email

North-Childress Letter

Brewer legal bills

NRA Board Minutes 1/7/2021

Email to Board, 3/15/2021

Email to Board, 3/17/2021

Compilation of Form 990 data

NRA Board Minutes, 3/28/2021

Email to Board re Brewer, 3/18/2021

Email to Board, 7/1/2021

Email to Board, 8/27/2021

Bio and Resume

I would be remiss to not mention that Attorney General Letitia James released a statement today on Mr. Marshall’s Motion to Intervene. The only really relevant part was this:“While we continue to review this motion, we are glad to hear that Mr. Marshall agrees that Wayne LaPierre and his top lieutenants must be removed from the NRA. Our fight for transparency and accountability from the NRA and its leadership will continue because no organization is above the law.”

The Wall Street Journal reports that Willes Lee issued the official response from the NRA.

“It is unfortunate that Mr. Marshall aligns himself with those who continually attempt to intervene in the handling of NRA’s matters by its elected leadership. The NRA is a well-managed, actively engaged membership organization. We will continue on our current course of action—in the interests of our five million members and their Second Amendment freedoms.”

Any one who has read my blog for the last couple of years knows my opinion of Willes Lee. My biggest regret is that I endorsed him for the Board not once but twice. I was taken in by him like so many others. That someone of his ilk is in a leadership position at the NRA says everything you need to know about why Mr. Marshall’s Motion to Intervene must be granted.

More On The NRA’s Bankruptcy Filing

There was a very interesting and informative blog post regarding the NRA’s bankruptcy filing on CreditSlips.org on Friday. The post was by Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin. Levitin is an expert on bankruptcy and business restructuring. His list of publications regarding bankruptcy includes both law books and multiple law review articles.

The post says there are many issues with the filing:

This is going to be one heck of an interesting case. There are already so many glaring issues (or should I say “targets”?): venue, good faith filing, disclosures, the automatic stay, the trustee question, fiduciary duties to pursue claims against insiders, executory employment contracts, the fate of Wayne LaPierre, and the generally overlooked governance provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

Read the whole post. The gist of it is that by filing for bankruptcy, the NRA has opened a can of worms and there could be a lot of unintended consequences. For example, if as the NY Attorney General alleges, Wayne LaPierre has a contract that guarantees his salary for life even if removed, bankruptcy law limits that to one year’s salary.

I hope this is the last post I have to do on the NRA filing for bankruptcy for the time being. There are other important matters to write about such as the virtual Shot Show that starts today.

Clues To NRA’s Legal Strategy

Attorney Sarah Rogers of Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, filed a “Notice of Suggestion” before the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation yesterday. It was in regard to the NRA and Sea Girt LLC’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas.

From the Notice of Suggestion:

Section 362(a) (Automatic Stay) of the Bankruptcy Code automatically prohibits, inter alia, the following:
* the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title;
* the enforcement, against the debtor or against property of the estate, of a judgment obtained before the commencement of the case under this title;
* any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.

I think that tells you exactly what the legal strategy formulated by William Brewer III is for the NRA. It is to use bankruptcy as a means to stop or put a hold on the cases involving Ackerman McQueen, David Dell’Aquila, and the State of New York. That is, at least in Federal court.

It gets more interesting according to a book put out by the American Bankruptcy Institute entitled, Bankruptcy Issues for State Trial Court Judges Third Edition.

Federal law allows the removal of civil actions from state court to federal district court if jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1334 (the federal jurisdictional provision that creates a bankruptcy case). The petition for
removal must be filed in the district court to which the matter is removed. Removal is to the federal district court for the jurisdiction in which the state court matter is pending, not to the district in which the bankruptcy case is pending. Consequently, if the bankruptcy case is in a different federal district, a motion for change of venue to that district may be filed after the matter is removed.

The book goes on to say that this applies to all courts, state and Federal. However, if you examine the case against the NRA by the Attorney General of New York Letitia James, it probably is might be stayed against the NRA but not against Wayne LaPierre, Woody Phillips, John Frazer, or Josh Powell. That is because a §362 stay applies to the property of the estate, property of the debtor, and the debtor. The individuals named by James in the dissolution lawsuit are not debtors in a bankruptcy filing.

However, there is an exception to a §362 that I’m sure the State of New York will seek to use:

The commencement or continuation of an action or proceeding by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power. Examples would be prosecution under a rubbish ordinance, an action to close a restaurant for health code violations, or litigation to determine the debtor’s liability for consumer protection violations and liquidation of the amounts owed for those violations. The exception extends to enforcement of a judgment, other than a money judgment, obtained by a governmental unit to enforce its police or regulatory power. Section 362(b)(4)

The regulatory power involving the NRA would be that of New York’s ability to regulate charities which is the basis of the dissolution suit. It will be up to the judge hearing the dissolution lawsuit to decide whether the stay resulting from the bankruptcy filings apply. I’m sure that New York will argue that it doesn’t just as the NRA’s lawyers will argue that it does.

I should remind the reader that I’m not a lawyer and that case law usually is of greater importance than the how the law is written. In other words, how a law is interpreted by the courts trumps how the legislature wrote the law.

Letitia James Responds To NRA Move

New York Attorney General Letitia James has responded to the legal moves by the National Rifle Association to reincorporate in Texas.

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today released the following statement after the National Rifle Association (NRA) declared it would seek bankruptcy protections in federal court, as well as sought to reincorporate its nonprofit status in the state of Texas:

“The NRA’s claimed financial status has finally met its moral status: bankrupt. While we review this filing, we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.”

In August, Attorney General James filed a lawsuit against the NRA, Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, and three of LaPierre’s current or former top executives for failing to manage the NRA’s funds; failing to follow numerous state and federal laws, as well as the NRA’s own bylaws and policies; and contributing to the loss of more than $64 million in just three years for the NRA. The suit was filed against the NRA as a whole, LaPierre, as well as former Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, former Chief of Staff and the Executive Director of General Operations Joshua Powell, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer.

According to a story on the bankruptcy filing by Reuters, it is thought the move will put the New York lawsuit on hold and may remove James’ power over the NRA through the reincorporation. Maybe yes, maybe no.

NRA To Reincorporate In Texas

After 150 years, the National Rifle Association is finally abandoning New York. They have filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas and plan to reincorporate in Texas.

Here is the full press release sent out this afternoon by Wayne LaPierre. I will have more on the bankruptcy filing after I have had time to read it. Imagine how much time and legal expense they could have saved if they had listened to law professor Joseph Olson when he suggested as a board member in 1991.

NRA Leaves New York to Reincorporate in Texas, Announces New Strategic Plan

NRA Plans to Exit New York to Pursue Opportunity, Growth and Progress in Texas; Plan Benefits Association, Its Millions of Members, and All Supporters of the Second Amendment

Fairfax, VA – The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) today announced it will restructure the Association as a Texas nonprofit to exit what it believes is a corrupt political and regulatory environment in New York. The move will enable long-term, sustainable growth and ensure the NRA’s continued success as the nation’s leading advocate for constitutional freedom – free from the toxic political environment of New York.

The NRA plan, which involves utilizing the protection of the bankruptcy court, has the Association dumping New York and organizing its legal and regulatory matters in an efficient forum. The move comes at a time when the NRA is in its strongest financial condition in years.

The NRA will continue with the forward advancement of the enterprise – confronting anti-Second Amendment activities, promoting firearm safety and training, and advancing public programs across the United States. There will be no immediate changes to the NRA’s operations or workforce.  

The Association will seek court approval to reincorporate the Association in the State of Texas – home to more than 400,000 NRA members and site of the 2021 NRA Annual Meeting in Houston.

“This strategic plan represents a pathway to opportunity, growth and progress,” says NRA CEO & EVP Wayne LaPierre. “Obviously, an important part of this plan is ‘dumping New York.’ The NRA is pursuing reincorporating in a state that values the contributions of the NRA, celebrates our law-abiding members, and will join us as a partner in upholding constitutional freedom. This is a transformational moment in the history of the NRA.”

The restructuring plan aims to streamline costs and expenses, proceed with pending litigation in a coordinated and structured manner, and realize many financial and strategic advantages.

The Path Forward

The NRA will move quickly through the restructuring process. Its day-to-day operations, training programs, and Second Amendment advocacy will continue as usual.

By exiting New York, where the NRA has been incorporated for approximately 150 years, the NRA abandons a state where elected officials have weaponized the legal and regulatory powers they wield to penalize the Association and its members for purely political purposes.

In the summer of 2018, then New York Attorney General candidate Letitia James vowed that, if elected, she would use the powers of her office to investigate the “legitimacy” of the NRA.

Without a shred of evidence to support the claim, she called the Association a “terrorist organization” and a “criminal enterprise.” As promised, she commenced an “investigation” upon being elected to the Office of NYAG and, predictably, filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve the NRA just prior to the November 2020 national election.

The NRA filed a lawsuit in August 2020 against the NYAG similar to its lawsuit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Department of Financial Services, filed in 2018. The NRA pursues the defendants for attempting to “blacklist” the organization and its financial partners in violation of their First Amendment rights. The NRA will continue those legal actions.  

“Under this plan, the Association wisely seeks protection from New York officials who it believes have illegally weaponized their powers against the NRA and its members,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA in those cases. “The NRA will continue the fight to protect the interests of its members in New York – and all forums where the NRA is unlawfully singled out for its Second Amendment advocacy.”

With respect to its headquarters, the NRA has formed a committee to study opportunities for relocating segments of its business operations to Texas or other states. The Association will analyze whether a move of its headquarters, now located in Fairfax, Virginia, is in the best interests of its members. In the meantime, the NRA’s general business operations will remain in Fairfax.

To facilitate its strategic plan and restructuring, the NRA and one of its subsidiaries filed voluntary chapter 11 petitions in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Chapter 11 proceedings are routinely utilized by businesses, nonprofits and organizations of all kinds to streamline legal and financial affairs.  

The NRA also announced Marschall Smith will serve as Chief Restructuring Officer. A former Senior Vice President and General Counsel of 3M Company, Smith has more than 35 years of legal and business experience with an emphasis on compliance, corporate finance, and corporate governance.

“I am honored to join the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization during this important time,” Smith says. “Our goal is to work through the restructuring process efficiently and quickly – even as NRA leadership approaches 2021 with renewed energy and an expanding national platform. This plan has no impact on the NRA’s most important goal:  serving its membership and protecting the Second Amendment.”

The NRA will propose a plan that provides for payment in full of all valid creditors’ claims. The Association expects to uphold commitments to employees, vendors, members, and other community stakeholders.

“The plan allows us to protect the NRA and go forward with a renewed focus on Second Amendment advocacy,” says NRA President Carolyn Meadows. “We will continue to honor the trust placed in us by employees, members and other stakeholders – following a blueprint that allows us to become the strongest NRA ever known.”

Additional Information:

Patrick J. Neligan of Neligan LLP, Dallas, Texas, is serving as debtor’s counsel; William (Wit) Davis is counsel to the NRA Board of Directors and its Special Litigation Committee; Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, Dallas, Texas, serves as special counsel to the NRA. To learn more, please visit www.nra.org/forward.