ILNews

Church accuses JPMorgan of mismanagement, self-dealing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Christ Church Cathedral in Indianapolis has filed a federal lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, alleging the bank's "intentional mismanagement" and "self-dealing" led to $13 million in losses in church trust accounts endowed in the 1970s by Eli Lilly Jr.

The church, which occupies the oldest structure on Monument Circle, said the bank from 2004 to 2013 invested its money in 177 different investment products, including "high-risk, high-cost, opaque, unsuitable and poorly performing investments."

Between 2004 and 2007, the value of church trusts managed by the bank ranged from $35.4 million to $39.2 million. By December 2013, after the stock market had shot higher, the trust's value had dropped to $31.6 million.

Meantime, the bank's fees increased 475 percent. The suit notes that the church's annual fee to JPMorgan rose from an average of $35,000 to $177,800. The church has paid more than $1 million in fees to the bank.

"At the very highest levels of JPMorgan, decisions were made to steer clients to JPMorgan products regardless of the damage which could result to beneficiaries such as Christ Church," the suit claims. "Most of the financial products found in the Christ Church Trusts' portfolio earned JPMorgan substantial revenues in disclosed and undisclosed fees."

A spokeswoman for JPMorgan said the bank does not comment on lawsuits.

At one point, the suit notes, as much as 85 percent of the church's portfolio was invested in "proprietary" JPMorgan investments including hedge funds and derivative investment products. In some cases, the church's money provided "seed" capital for new and unproven investment products.

When Eli Lilly Jr. died in 1977, he left 10 percent of his estate to the church, with management of three trusts divided among three local banks. None of the banks still exist; JPMorgan wound up managing two of the trusts after bank consolidation.

"At the time the will was written, banks were typically appointed as trustees to administer estates, collect and safeguard assets, and distribute testamentary bequests," the suit notes. "At the time, banks were prohibited from acting as broker-dealers and investment bankers, did not offer their own financial products other than conservative and transparent investments, and did not have a personal stake or interest in the specific investments."

All of the church's trusts are now managed by the Christ Church Cathedral Foundation, after JPMorgan resigned as trustee in December 2013. But the bank is still manager for some private-equity investments the bank won't be able to close out until 2023, said attorney Linda Pence, who's representing the church.

The church had a total endowment of $67.1 million as of December 2013.

The lawsuit recounts years of conflict between the church's investment committee and JPMorgan. For instance, in 2009, the investment committee asked the bank to reallocate funds into undervalued stocks, but the bank did the opposite, selling stocks to pile into bonds, the suit notes.

The bank also repeatedly pointed out it had full control over investments, as trustee, and refused to take any direction from the church's investment committee.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in Indianapolis.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  2. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  3. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  4. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  5. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

ADVERTISEMENT