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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT