Details on FTC enforcement action against four cancer charities – 8

July 23, 2015, 9:00 am
Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington, DC. - Picture courtesy of DollarPhotoClub.com

Federal Trade Commission Building in Washington, DC. – Picture courtesy of DollarPhotoClub.com

This is the eighth in a series of posts diving into the detail mentioned in the complaint by FTC and all Attorneys General against four named cancer charities. The complaint can be found here. My posts in this series are visible using the FTC tag.

This is the second of two posts on comments in the complaint addressing valuation at an overall level. Next discussions will go into detail of valuation issues by charity.

Read the rest of this entry »


Details on FTC enforcement action against four cancer charities – 7

July 20, 2015, 7:20 am

This is the seventh in a series of posts diving into the detail mentioned in the complaint by FTC and all Attorneys General against four named cancer charities. The complaint can be found here. My posts in this series are visible using the FTC tag.

This is the first of two posts on comments in the complaint addressing valuation at an overall level. Following paragraphs in the complaint go into detail by charity.

This will be a long post. Not sure how to conveniently break it into two or three separate discussions.

Corporate Defendants Improperly Reported the Value of GIK

  1. Even assuming, arguendo, that in some instances Corporate Defendants could have properly claimed the GIK goods’ value as contributed revenue or reported it as program expense, in numerous instances, Corporate Defendants used improper valuation methods to inflate the reported values of donated goods. Corporate Defendants also failed to retain appropriate documentation of those valuations.

This is not going well. I think that paragraph asserts that none of the GIK shipments should have been included in revenue.

Furthermore, assuming shipments actually had variance authority there are two additional problems according to the complaint. First, goods were overvalued. Second, documentation is not retained to support the recorded valuation. Read the rest of this entry »


Details on FTC enforcement action against four cancer charities – 6

July 16, 2015, 8:57 am

This is the sixth in a series of posts diving deep into the detail mentioned in the complaint by FTC and all Attorneys General against four named cancer charities.

The complaint is visible be found here. I will quote and comment upon the complaint. My posts in this series are visible using the FTC tag.

This is the second of two posts on specific comments in the complaint addressing variance authority.

Continuing with the complaint… Read the rest of this entry »


Details on FTC enforcement action against four cancer charities – 5

July 14, 2015, 6:53 am

This is the fifth in a series of posts diving deep into the detail mentioned in the complaint by FTC and all Attorneys General against four named cancer charities.

This is the first of two posts on specific comments in the complaint addressing variance authority.

I will quote and comment upon the complaint which can be found here. My posts in this series are visible using the FTC tag.

Defendants Improperly Reported Receipt and Distribution of GIK They Did Not Own   Read the rest of this entry »


Details on FTC enforcement action against four cancer charities – 4

July 10, 2015, 8:43 am

This is the fourth in a series of posts diving deep into the detail mentioned in the complaint by FTC and all Attorneys General against four named cancer charities.

I will quote and comment upon the complaint, which can be found here.

My posts in this series are visible using the FTC tag.

Continuing with the complaint…. As you see the references to INTERMEDIATE, remember that is a named for-profit entity that found and placed shipments of GIK. I choose not to mention their name since they have not been charged in any action. Read the rest of this entry »


Another cancer charity under investigation; a summarized 2013 income statement

July 8, 2015, 9:43 am

The Wall Street Journal reports an additional Cancer Nonprofit Investigated by Tennessee Secretary of State’s Office.

If you have been following the suit by the FTC and all 50 AGs against a group of four cancer charities, it will be worth checking out the article to learn another charity is under investigation in its home state.

The key leader of this organization has a familial link to the four in the FTC investigation. The article links this charity to those four.

Not much detail in the article about the particulars of this investigation. As to the general direction, you can get some hints from this quote in the article:

“They appear to follow a pattern similar to the groups that were part of the [FTC] claim,” said CharityWatch President Daniel Borochoff.

Read the rest of this entry »


Details on FTC enforcement action against four cancer charities – 3

July 6, 2015, 11:42 am

This is the third in a long series of posts diving deep into the detail mentioned in the complaint by FTC and all Attorneys General against four named cancer charities. My posts are visible using the FTC tag.

My goal is to highlight some of the information that I think is of particular interest to the wider nonprofit community. This complaint is the most detailed information available in the public realm about the range of issues that have been visible in the charity world over the last few years. Keep in mind that unlike the long series of news coverage on the issue this information is from regulators who have subpoena authority.

The complaint is visible here. I will quote it and add my comments.

Continuing with the complaint:

Misrepresentations about Charitable Efficiency: Improperly Reported GIK Used to Disguise Low Charitable Program Expenditures and Minimize High Administrative and Fundraising Costs

Read the rest of this entry »