KC Art Institute Sues Couple over Unfulfilled $5M pledge

November 27, 2012

  • November 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    reality says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 0

    No good deed goes unpunished ….. see who will contribute to them in the future

    • November 27, 2012 at 4:03 pm
      Billy Mays says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 5

      DID YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? THE GUY COVERED UP A MASSIVE SCHEME AS A BANK PRESIDENT SQUANDERING $22M TO TRY TO HIDE IT. HE ENTERED A CONTRACT WITH THE SCHOOL WHY SHOULD HE NOT HONOR IT?

  • November 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    Lucky says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 1

    How is this insurance-related?

  • November 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm
    an ex employee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    He also owned an insurance company and an insurance agency. You don’t get banned from the financial services industry for no reason.

  • November 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm
    Johnson says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    The other issues can muddy the real issue here: Can and should organizations and non-profits sue those who pledge donations? I think, perhaps if the recipient received a clearly worded disclosure that says a pledge to them is a contractual obligation and they intend to collect each and every donation.

    If NPR sued everyone who pledged any amount, collections organizations would be really busy for a short while until all donation pledges dried up.

  • November 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm
    Pete G says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Can’t get blood from a stone… More importantly, where did the fidiciary responsibility of the Institute Board and paid leadership go to evaluate if a pledge was solid enough to commence building? Me thinks the wrong folks are being sued.

  • November 29, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    Bluemax says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Idea Sue the Board under their D&O for making a fiduciary snafoo of going ahead with spending money that was a “pledge” rather than a guarantee. A successful D&O suit then could pay for the building. The defense we were stupid is used all the time for thise losing such suits.

  • December 6, 2012 at 7:31 pm
    Barone says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It just goes to show its all about the money anymore. So much greed and corruption out there. And heartless people. Like the old saying becareful of what you do to others. It may come back upon your head one day.

    Also You cant get blood out of a turnip. Its a shame instead of being sympathetic to someone who has lost what they used to have and cant afford to help them, now you take them to court. I personally would never go to a museum that treated people this way.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features