RSS

Charity Scams – Fake Charities

Most of us have the gift of human compassion. Whether it is the victim of September 11th or the little orphan across the street we are glad to help out. Unfortunately, thieves know that and take it to their advantage. Before you give anything to a charity, perform your due diligence before you contribute.

Many scam operations were popping up when hurricanes were roaming through the lands of America and the tsunami disaster that swept across the Indian Ocean, striking coastal regions of Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Burma and Malaysia. Be wary of fake donations during a crisis. Sadly, but low life scammers turn disasters into their own money making opportunities. Setting up a phony charity is pretty easy, so below are some tips to avoid charity scams and fake charities.

TIPS

  • Never give payment information to anyone calling YOU
  • Carefully check the name of the company! Charity scams use similar to original names to cause confusion and obtain your donations. Example: National Cancer Society (SCAM) instead of American Cancer Society (REAL)
  • Avoid all charities that use a “pitch” filled with a significant amount of emotional words and or images
  • Ask the charity to send you printed material via mail. If the material does not contain details on exactly how the money is used and the percent of donations which actually reach the given cause, do not contribute. If some informations are not written and you still would like to know the details, call them. Legitimate charities withstand secrecy and never hesitate to prove who they are, what they do and how they do it
  • Check the company with the Better Business Bureau
  • Don’t give in to pressure or hard sell tactics and if the charity representative pressures you to give money immediately or as soon as possible, get even more suspicious
  • Be careful if the “charity” accepts an online payment processor like paypal and a PO Box as their only payment options. All charities should support the wire transfer also as a PO BOX is anonymous and we know how easy it is to open up a fake paypal account. Reputable charities have a street address and a phone number
  • If you received a charity request by email check the email address. Is it from a free provider like hotmail or gmail? A charity sending out emails should also have a top level domain like .org, .com, .net and the email should come from this domain. The email to which the payments should go should also be a real domain and be part of their website. Something like donations@charityname.com or similar. However, as a general rule reputable charities don’t spam and you won’t receive an email from them directly without your prior inquiry

Before contributing also use these following resources to help you on your way. Even a single dollar is a dollar too much if it comes into the scammers wallet.

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments For This Post

  1. eduardoalarcon Says:

    Web page: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=SEC-LegalDocs&id=27515&v=Default

    State of Maine
    Office of Securities
    21 State House Station
    Augusta, Maine 04333-0121

    IN RE: NOTICE OF INTENT
    06-073

    JAMES L. CLIFFORD
    ALLEGATIONS
    1. James L. Clifford (“Clifford”) (CRD # 1419478) is an individual who has been licensed in Maine as a sales representative or agent since at least 1985. His last known address is 955 Eastern Avenue, Holden, Maine 04429.
    2. From December 4, 1997, to the present, Clifford has worked as a sales representative or agent at the Brewer, Maine, branch office of Investors Capital Corp. (“ICC”).
    3. Pearl P. Schoppe (“Ms. Schoppe”) was a life-long resident of Orono, Maine, and the valedictorian of the 1936 graduating class of Husson College in Bangor, Maine.
    4. In May of 1996 Ms. Schoppe established a living trust (the “Schoppe Trust”) with herself as trustee and with two of her relatives designated as trustees upon her death. The original trust document directed that upon Ms. Schoppe’s death, after payment of any of Ms. Schoppe’s debts, expenses and taxes, and certain distributions, the remainder of the trust property was to be held in trust for Husson College with income distributions to fund a scholarship program.
    5. Ms. Schoppe was conservative with her investments. She essentially bought only certificates of deposits and fixed annuities.
    6. In October of 1998, Ms. Schoppe, then age 80, amended the trust document to, among other things, change the trustee upon her death to Clifford. The amendment also changed the provision regarding the distribution of the remainder of her trust property. As amended, instead of the property being held in trust for Husson, the trust instrument dictated that the property was to be “distributed to the National Heritage Foundation F.B.O. Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation.”
    7. The charitable purpose stated by Ms. Schoppe on the National Heritage Foundation application was “Assist students of the Greater Bangor/Brewer, Orono/Old Town, ME area who need financial aid to attend Husson College. To be paid out interest only 80% of interest to go to students, 20% of the interest to go back into the Foundation so foundation will continue to grow.”
    8. Ms. Schoppe died on January 19, 2000.
    9. On March 7, 2000, in Singer Island, Florida, Clifford and John T.”Dock” Houck, II, CEO of National Heritage Foundation, (“NHF”) completed the paperwork for “National Heritage Foundation Inc. FBO Pearl Schoppe FNDTN” to purchase a $150,000 variable annuity from Conseco Variable Annuity Insurance Company through ICC, using funds from the Schoppe Trust.
    10. On May 11, 2000, Clifford sent an additional $50,000 from the Schoppe Trust’s checking account to Conseco to add to the variable annuity.
    11. The subaccounts chosen by Clifford and Houck were largely more-risky growth funds, when Ms. Schoppe’s stated intent and investment history dictated the use of more conservative income-producing investments.
    12. The variable annuity sold by Clifford to the foundation was unsuitable for the charitable purposes expressed by Ms. Schoppe. There was no tax benefit and no value to having a death benefit on the life of Mr. Houck to offset the higher costs and reduced liquidity of the investment.
    13. Clifford received $12,600 in commissions on these transactions. In addition, Clifford has paid himself trustee fees exceeding $42,000.00 from the trust assets despite the fact that he appears to have provided little if any valuable services to the trust.
    14. Since the purchase of the variable annuity in March of 2000, Husson College has received no scholarship money from the Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation.
    15. Under federal law, variable annuities are securities and the offer and sale of variable annuities is regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    16. The NASD is a national securities association registered with the SEC under §15A and in accordance with the provision of §19(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    17. NASD Rules are filed with the SEC and promulgated under §19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NASD rules apply to “all members and persons associated with a member. Persons associated with a member shall have the same duties and obligations as a member” under the association’s rules. NASD Rule 0115.
    18. ICC is a member of NASD and Clifford is a person associated with ICC.
    19. NASD Rule 2310 requires that a member have reasonable grounds for believing that a recommended purchase is suitable for a customer based on the facts disclosed by the customer including the customer’s investment objectives.
    20. By virtue of his training and experience, Clifford knew the requirements of NASD Rule 2310. Through his customer relationship with Ms. Schoppe, Clifford knew her investment objectives and the charitable purpose for which she established the Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation. Thus, Clifford intentionally or knowingly failed to comply with NASD Rule 2310. 32 M.R.S.A. §10313(1)(B).
    21. By using funds of the Schoppe Trust to purchase an unsuitable investment, Clifford engaged in unlawful or unethical conduct in the securities business. 32 M.R.S.A. §10313(1)(G).
    22. Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. §§10313 and 16702, the Securities Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, issue an order to revoke the license of a licensee or impose a bar on a licensee if the Securities Administrator finds that the order is in the public interest and that the licensee: (1) has engaged in unlawful, unethical or dishonest conduct in the securities business; or (2) has intentionally or knowingly violated or failed to comply with a rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    NOTICE
    Notice is hereby given that the Securities Administrator intends to issue an Order to Revoke Clifford’s Agent License and Censure Him or Bar Him from Association under 32 M.R.S.A. §§10313(1) and 16702(1).
    If Clifford wants to request a hearing in this matter, he must do so in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this Notice of Intent. 32 M.R.S.A. §§10708, 16702(1).

    Date: November 28, 2006 /s/ Michael J. Colleran
    ` Michael J. Collera
    Securities Administrator
    Date: November 28, 2006 /s/ Bonnie E. Russell
    Bonnie E. Russell
    Assistant Securities Administrator
    Date: November 28, 2006 /s/ Willis P. Smedberg
    Willis P. Smedberg
    Investigator/Examiner
    Last Updated: December 20, 2006 4:42 PM

    Posted by: Eduardo Alarcon
    19319 Inverness Dr.
    Spicewood, TX 78669
    (512) 217-6655
    Eduardo.alarcon@sbcglobal.net

  2. eduardoalarcon Says:

    The National Heritage Foundation/Congressional District Programs and their salesmen are under investigation by Federal and State agencies.
    If you have any questions please feel free to contact the owner of the NHF, JOHN HOUK, at (561) 301-3891 or dock@nhf.org.
    Posted by:
    Eduardo Alarcon
    19319 Inverness Dr.
    Spicewood, TX 78669
    (512) 217-6655
    eduardo.alarcon@sbcglobal.net

  3. Eduardo Alarcon Says:

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
    ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
    JOHN R. BEHRMANN, NANCY P. A–
    BEHRMANN and
    DOLORES F. ANDERSON,
    Plaintiffs,
    Civil Action No.
    -,
    JOHN T. HOUK, II, MIRIAM M. HOUK, ( ft(J 1 / \
    JOHN T. HOUK III, JANET H.
    RIDGELY AND JULIE L. HOUK,
    Defendants.
    COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
    Plaintiffs, John R. Behrmann and Nancy P. Behrmann (collectively
    referred to as the “Behrmanns”) and Dolores F. Anderson (“Ms. Anderson”), through
    their undersigned counsel, allege for their Complaint against each of the named
    Defendants as follows:
    I. Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
    1. Plaintiff John R. Behrmann (“J. Berhmann”) is an individual over
    the age of twenty one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of
    Pennsylvania. At all times material to this Complaint he has been married to Nancy P.
    Behrmann.
    2. Plaintiff Nancy P. Behrmann is an individual over the age of
    twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania. At all
    times material to this Complaint she has been married to J. Behrmann.
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 30
    3. Plaintiff Ms. Anderson is an individual over the age of twenty-one
    (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of South Carolina.
    4. Defendant John T. Houk II (“Houk”) is an individual over the age
    of twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. At all
    times material to this Complaint Houk has been married to Miriam M. Houk. He is also
    the father of John T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely, and is the father-in-law of Julie L.
    Houk. At all times material to this Complaint Houk acted as a representative and agent
    of National Heritage Foundation, Inc. (“NHF”), Miriam M. Houk, John T. Houk III,
    Janet H. Ridgely and Julie L. Houk within the scope of his authority, and he acted in
    active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the other Defendants.
    5. Defendant Miriam M. Houk is an individual over the age of
    twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. At all times
    material to this Complaint she has been married to Houk. She is also the mother of John
    T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely, and she is the mother-in-law of Julie L. Houk. At all
    times material to this Complaint Miriam M. Houk acted as a representative and agent of
    NHF, Houk, John T. Houk III, Janet H. Ridgely and Julie L. Houk within the scope of her
    authority, and she acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the
    other Defendants.
    6. Defendant John T. Houk III is an individual over the age of
    twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. At all times
    material to this Complaint he has been married to Julie L. Houk. He is also the son of
    Houk and Miriam M. Houk, and he is the brother of Janet H. Ridgely. At all times
    material to this Complaint John T. Houk III acted as a representative and agent of NHF,
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 2 of 30
    Houk, Miriam M. Houk, Janet H. Ridgely and Julie L. Houk within the scope of his
    authority, and he acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the
    other Defendants.
    7. Defendant Janet H. Ridgely is an individual over the age of
    twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. She is the
    daughter of Houk and Miriam M. Houk, and she is also the sister of John T. Houk III. At
    all times material to this Complaint Janet H. Ridgely acted as a representative and agent
    of NHF, Houk, Miriam M. Houk, John T. Houk III and Julie L. Houk within the scope of
    her authority, and she acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of
    the other Defendants.
    8. Defendant Julie L. Houk is an individual over the age of twentyone
    (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. She is the wife of
    John T. Houk III, and she is the daughter-in-law of Houk and Miriam M. Houk. At all
    times material to this Complaint Julie L. Houk acted as a representative and agent of
    NHF, Houk, Miriam M. Houk, John T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely within the scope of
    her authority, and she acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of
    the other Defendants.
    9. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for
    relief alleged in this Complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) as the action
    involves citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five
    Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 3 of 30
    10. Venue is proper in this judicial district under the provisions of 28
    U.S.C. §1391 (a) as at least one of the Defendants resides in the Eastern District of
    Virginia.
    II. General Allegations
    11. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the allegations contained in
    Paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    12. NHF is a Georgia not-for-profit corporation that was formed by
    Houk in 1994 for, among other purposes, soliciting contributions from those persons (such
    as the Plaintiffs) who wish to develop, evaluate, implement and monitor charitable giving
    plans, programs and strategies for the benefit of worthy organizations and causes. At all
    times material to this Complaint, the Houk family has maintained the corporate offices of
    NHF within the State of Virginia.
    13. At all times material to this Complaint, Mariam M. Houk, John T.
    Houk III and Julie L. Houk served on the Board of Directors of NHF. At all times material
    to this Complaint, Houk’s family members constituted a majority of, and controlled, NHF’s
    Board of Directors.
    14. At all times material to this Complaint, Houk served as Chief
    Executive Officer of NHF; Miriam M. Houk served as Chief Operating Officer of NHF;
    John T. Houk III served as President of NHF; and Janet H. Ridgely served as Vice
    President of NHF. These were the only officer positions for NHF. Accordingly, all NHF’s
    officers were members of Houk’s immediate family.
    15. At all times material to this Complaint, NHF was held out to the
    public (including Plaintiffs) by the Defendants and their agents as a nonprofit, public
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 4 of 30
    charity exempt from federal income tax under IRC §501(c)(3). At all times material to this
    Complaint, the Defendants and their agents asserted collectively and publicly that the
    purpose of NHF was to assist the progress of scientific, charitable, educational and
    religious activities by consolidating and centralizing the administration of charitable
    donations and projects.
    A. Background Relating to the Behrmanns
    16. Beginning in late 1996, J. Behrmann was introduced to Houk.
    Houk represented and assured J. Behrmann that – through NHF ~ Houk could materially
    assist the Behrmanns in developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring a tailored
    charitable giving plan, program and strategy that advanced and satisfied the Behrmanns’
    charitable giving goals.
    17. Houk held himself and NHF out to J. Behrmann in interstate
    telecommunications between Virginia and Pennsylvania (where the Behrmanns reside), and
    in materials transmitted through interstate mail, as possessing specialized and superior
    education, training, knowledge, skill and experience in respect of the development,
    evaluation, implementation and monitoring of efficient and effective charitable giving
    plans, programs and strategies. At all times material to this Complaint, the Behrmanns
    were solicited, invited, importuned and induced by Houk and his agents in these interstate
    communications to repose special trust and confidence in Houk and the other Defendants in
    respect of these charitable giving matters.
    18. As a result of these importuning, inducements and representations,
    the Behrmanns reasonably and justifiably chose to repose special trust and confidence in
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 5 of 30
    Houk and the other Defendants, and the Behrmanns continued to do so until NHF filed for
    bankruptcy relief in January of 2009.
    19. More particularly, Defendants (through Houk and his agents)
    aggressively solicited, invited, importuned and induced the Behrmanns to establish a donor
    advised fund (“DAF”) — which became known as Highbourne Foundation (“Highbourne”)
    – at NHF, and to make substantial contributions of cash and property to Highbourne/NHF.
    20. In the period between approximately December of 1996 and
    December of 2007, Defendants and their agents were successful in causing the Behrmanns
    to: (i) establish Highbourne as a DAF at NHF, and (ii) make cash and/or property
    charitable contributions in the approximate aggregate amount of $1.09 million to the
    Highbourne DAF. Defendants and their agents accomplished this result via: (i) express and
    implied representations, assurances, promises and commitments published to J. Behrmann
    and his agents and representatives in interstate telecommunications and mailings, and (ii)
    material omissions of material matters that in equity and good conscience should have been
    disclosed to the Behrmanns to ensure that the balance of that published to the Behrmanns
    was not materially misleading.
    21. More particularly, at the inception of the relationship with NHF
    (in approximately December of 1996) Houk and his agents advised, counseled and
    encouraged the Behrmanns, via interstate telecommunications and materials transmitted in
    interstate mailings, to establish Highbourne as a DAF at NHF so that Highbourne could be
    used as a vehicle through which the Behrmanns could make efficient and effective
    charitable, tax-deductible contributions to various worthy organizations and causes
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 6 of 30
    identified by the Behrmanns. Defendants (through Houk and his agents) expressly and
    impliedly represented and advised the Behrmanns that:
    A. Defendants possessed superior knowledge, skill, knowledge and
    training, and that the Defendants services and abilities would be used exclusively to
    promote and advance the Behrmanns’ goals of developing, evaluating, implementing and
    monitoring an efficient and effective charitable giving plan, program and strategy for the
    benefit of worthy causes and organizations identified by the Behrmanns.
    B. The strategy of making contributions through a DAF established at
    NHF would enable the Behrmanns to make one or more contributions of cash and/or
    property to Highbourne/NHF that would be tax-deductible in the year of the Behrmanns’
    contribution(s) to Highbourne/NHF;
    C. The Behrmanns’ contributions would be judiciously held, invested,
    managed and utilized by Highbourne/NHF in a manner that: (i) would advance and
    promote the Behrmanns’ charitable giving goals, and (ii) would not imperil the
    Behrmanns’ contributions and their availability for donation to worthy organizations and
    causes identified by the Behrmanns; and
    D. Upon making one or more contributions, the Behrmanns would
    hold the exclusive right/power to advise NHF as to subsequent donations that the
    Behrmanns wished to have made by Highbourne/NHF to worthy charitable organizations
    and causes identified by the Behrmanns.
    22. Based upon Defendants’ representations, promises, commitments,
    advice and counsel (communicated through Houk and his agents), the Behrmanns
    reasonably and justifiably: (i) entered into a contractual relationship with NHF, (ii)
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 7 of 30
    established Highbourne as a DAF within NHF in approximately December of 1996, and
    (iii) made a series of cash and property contributions to Highbourne/NHF in the period
    between approximately December of 1996 and December of 2007 in the aggregate
    amount of approximately $1.09 million.
    23. From and after December of 2006, the Behrmanns reasonably and
    justifiably relied upon Defendants to provide them with timely, accurate, truthful and
    comprehensive notice of: (i) any change in the roles, duties and allegiances of any of the
    Defendants, (ii) any change in the representations, promises, commitments, advice and
    counsel in respect of effecting contributions to Highbourne/NHF, (iii) any basis for
    concern or inquiry relating to NHF or relating to contributions made to Highbourne/NHF,
    and/or (iv) any adverse developments that might negatively impact the Behrmanns’
    charitable giving strategy being implemented through Highbourne/NHF. At no time did
    any of the Defendants or their agents provide the Behrmanns with any notice or warning
    of any of these.
    B. Background Relating to Dolores F. Anderson
    24. Beginning in approximately 2002, Ms. Anderson (through her
    representatives and agents) was introduced to Houk. Houk represented and assured Ms.
    Anderson’s representatives and agents that – through NHF — Houk and his agents could
    materially assist Ms. Anderson in developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring a
    tailored charitable giving plan, program and strategy that advanced and satisfied Ms.
    Anderson’s charitable giving goals.
    25. Houk held himself and NHF out to Ms. Anderson in telephone
    calls between Virginia and South Carolina (where Ms. Anderson and her representatives
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 8 of 30
    and agents reside), and in materials transmitted through interstate mail, as possessing
    specialized and superior education, training, knowledge, skill and experience in respect of
    the development, evaluation, implementation and monitoring of efficient and effective
    charitable giving plans, programs and strategies. At all times material to this Complaint,
    Ms. Anderson was solicited, invited, importuned and induced by Houk and his agents in
    these interstate communications to repose special trust and confidence in Houk and the
    other Defendants in respect of these charitable giving matters.
    26. As a result of these importuning, inducements and representations,
    Ms. Anderson reasonably and justifiably chose to repose special trust and confidence in
    Houk and the other Defendants, and Ms. Anderson continued to do so until NHF filed for
    bankruptcy relief in January of 2009.
    27. More particularly, Defendants (through Houk and his agents)
    aggressively solicited, invited, importuned and induced Ms. Anderson (through her
    representatives and agents) to establish a donor advised fund (“DAF”) — which became
    known as Dodie Anderson Foundation (“DAFoundation”) ~ at NHF, and to make
    substantial contributions of cash and property to DAFoundation/NHF.
    28. In the period between approximately November of 2003 and
    December 31, 2003, Defendants and their agents were successful in causing Ms. Anderson
    to: (i) establish DAFoundation as a DAF at NHF, and (ii) make an initial cash and/or
    property charitable contribution in the aggregate amount of $1,068,430 to the
    DAFoundation DAF. Defendants and their agents accomplished this result via: (i) express
    and implied representations, assurances, promises and commitments published to Ms.
    Anderson (through her representatives and agents) in interstate telecommunications and
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 9 of 30
    mailings, and (ii) material omissions of material matters that in equity and good conscience
    should have been disclosed to Ms. Anderson to ensure that the balance of that published to
    Ms. Anderson was not materially misleading.
    29. More particularly, at the inception of the relationship with NHF
    (in approximately December of 2003) Houk and his agents advised, counseled and
    encouraged Ms. Anderson (through her representatives and agents), via interstate telephone
    calls and materials transmitted in interstate mailings, to establish DAFoundation as a DAF
    at NHF so that DAFoundation could be used as a vehicle through which Ms. Anderson
    could make efficient and effective charitable, tax-deductible contributions to various
    worthy organizations and causes identified by Ms. Anderson. Defendants (through Houk
    and his agents) expressly and impliedly represented and advised Ms. Anderson (through
    her representatives and agents) that:
    A. Defendants possessed superior knowledge, skill, knowledge and
    training, and that the Defendants services and abilities would be used exclusively to
    promote and advance Ms. Anderson’s goals of developing, evaluating, implementing and
    monitoring an efficient and effective charitable giving plan, program and strategy for the
    benefit of worthy causes and organizations identified by Ms. Anderson;
    B. The strategy of making contributions through a DAF established at
    NHF would enable Ms. Anderson to make one or more contributions of cash and/or
    property to DAFoundation/NHF that would be tax-deductible in the year of Ms.
    Anderson’s contribution(s) to DAFoundation/NHF;
    C. Ms. Anderson’s contributions would be judiciously held, invested,
    managed and utilized by DAFoundation/NHF in a manner that: (i) would advance and
    10
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 10 of 30
    promote Ms. Anderson’s charitable giving goals, and (ii) would not imperil Ms.
    Anderson’s contributions and their availability for donation to worthy organizations and
    causes identified by Ms. Anderson; and
    D. Upon making one or more contributions, Ms. Anderson would
    hold the exclusive right/power to advise NHF as to subsequent donations that Ms.
    Anderson wished to have made by DAFoundation/NHF to worthy charitable organizations
    and causes identified by Ms. Anderson.
    30. Based upon Defendants’ representations, promises, commitments,
    advice and counsel (communicated through Houk and his agents), Ms. Anderson
    reasonably and justifiably: (i) entered into a contractual relationship with NHF, (ii)
    established DAFoundation as a DAF within NHF in approximately December of 2003,
    and (iii) made a series of cash and property contributions to DAFoundation/NHF in the
    period between approximately December 2003 and mid-July of 2007 in the aggregate
    amount of $1,911,259.
    31. From and after December of 2003, Ms. Anderson reasonably and
    justifiably relied upon Defendants to provide her with timely, accurate, truthful and
    comprehensive notice of: (i) any change in the roles, duties and allegiances of any of the
    Defendants, (ii) any change in the representations, promises, commitments, advice and
    counsel in respect of effecting contributions to DAFoundation/NHF, (iii) any basis for
    concern or inquiry relating to NHF or relating to contributions made to
    DAFoundation/NHF, and/or (iv) any adverse developments that might negatively impact
    Ms. Anderson’s charitable giving strategy being implemented through
    11
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 11 of 30
    DAFoundation/NHF. At no time did any of the Defendants or their agents provide Ms.
    Anderson with any notice or warning of any of these.
    C. The NHF Bankruptcy Filing and Proceedings
    32. In September of 2008, a Texas state court jury returned a $6.2
    million verdict against NHF and in favor of Juan and Silvia Mancillas. As a
    consequence, on January 24, 2009, NHF was forced to file a chapter 11 bankruptcy case
    in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
    33. Following the bankruptcy filing, J. Behrmann initiated a telephone
    call to Houk, and was assured by Houk that Highbourne/NHF would not be impacted.
    Following the bankruptcy filing, the Behrmanns and Ms. Anderson learned facts – for
    the first time – from which they were alerted that they had been seriously victimized by
    Defendants over the years. For example, from internet reports and other publications that
    were accessed following NHF’s bankruptcy filing, it was learned that the following
    collection of important matters had not been appropriately, timely, fairly and
    comprehensively disclosed to them by the Defendants prior to the bankruptcy filing:
    A. Houk founded the original National Heritage Foundation, Inc. in
    1968. In approximately 1982, the IRS filed suit to revoke the original entity’s charitable
    status for violations of the federal tax laws. Houk and the entity were accused of multiple
    counts of mismanagement; Houk was ousted as the CEO; and the original organization
    changed its name to National Foundation, Inc.
    B. In the wake of his firing by the original National Heritage
    Foundation entity, Houk was discharged from at least two follow-on positions (at St.
    Paul’s College in Southern Virginia and Palm Beach Atlantic College in West Palm
    12
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 12 of 30
    Beach Florida). In both instances, Houk declared that the differences that precipitated his
    discharge were his views on how fund-raisers — such as Houk ~ should be compensated
    by these educational institutions.
    C. Houk incorporated the current version of NHF in 1993. Since that
    time, NHF has been engaged in ongoing battles with the Internal Revenue Service in
    respect of the legitimacy of NHF’s practices as a charitable organization (offering NHF
    contributors various allegedly tax deductible options).
    D. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Houk has operated NHF
    much like a family business for the benefit of the Houk family. Houk is NHF’s chief
    executive. Also on the NHF payroll is Houk’s wife, Marian M. Houk (Chief Operating
    Officer), his son, John T. Houk III (President), his daughter, Janet H. Ridgely (Vice
    President) and daughter-in-law, Julie Houk (Vice President). These persons have
    collectively been very handsomely compensated by NHF and its affiliates in amounts
    beyond that which was justifiable.
    E. At all times material to this Complaint, the Houk family has
    controlled the NHF Board of Directors. For some undisclosed time the Houk family has
    occupied all of the NHF officer positions. Houk’s explanation for the Houk family’s
    dominance and control of NHF is that he does not want to repeat his mistakes of the past.
    F. NHF has been operated by the Houk family so as to engage in
    business transactions with business entities in which Houk holds a direct or indirect
    interest. For example, NHF has paid rent in respect of a building owned by Houk, has
    lent money to Charity Admin, a for-profit Houk-family entity (which was subsequently
    13
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 13 of 30
    written off) and later purchased services from yet another Houk family business, To the
    Point.
    G. From NHF’s offices (and using its personnel and resources) the
    Houk family has dominated, controlled and operated another dubious IRC §501(c)(3)
    entity known as Congressional District Programs, Inc. (“CDP”). CDP engages in
    soliciting persons to become “Program Managers.” Program Managers are individuals
    who – for a fee paid to CDP – become a Program Manager for CDP and solicit funds
    from others to be donated to CDP. These donations are allegedly tax deductible. The
    Program Managers thereafter submit disbursement requests to CDP for disbursements in
    the Program Manager’s “field of interest” as well as for the Program Manager’s expenses
    (such as entertainment and travel). NHF and CDP maintain overlapping directors,
    officers and staff. No information has ever been provided to the Plaintiffs respecting the
    allocation of costs and expenses of operation between NHF and CDP. Notably, in the
    days immediately preceding NHF’s bankruptcy filing Houk caused NHF to transfer
    approximately $1 million to CDP.
    H. At all times material to this Complaint, the Houk family directors
    and officers of NHF have been confronted with material, undisclosed conflicts of interest
    during the course of performing their duties for NHF. The only conflicts disclosure
    required by NHF (in its bylaws) is disclosure to the NHF Board of Directors which is
    dominated and controlled by the Houk family.
    I. NHF has been operated by the Houk family in a manner which
    caused NHF to engage in highly dubious and risky activities and practices, including
    (without limitation) extending $14 million in unsecured loans to a nonpublic company
    14
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 14 of 30
    operated by an individual who served as an unlicensed investment adviser to NHF and a
    vendor of NHF’s software. This loan has fallen into default and has not been repaid.
    J. NHF has been fairly accused of engaging in imprudent business
    and investment practices, and that it published financial statements that were false and/or
    misleading (including NHF’s investments in one or more “mutual funds”).
    K. NHF elected not to establish, implement and monitor appropriate
    measures and procedures to prevent material, unauthorized payments by its employees,
    and at least one substantial unauthorized payment was made by a NHF employee.
    L. NHF and Defendants expressly and impliedly represented that the
    contributions effected by Plaintiffs (through their respective DAFs, Highbourne and
    DAFoundation) would be used for legitimate charitable purposes ~ about which
    Plaintiffs would have sole advisory input. Defendants’ concealed that Plaintiffs’
    contributions: (i) were being used as collateral for NHF’s institutional indebtedness, (ii)
    could be used by NHF to repay its institutional indebtedness, and/or (iii) could be robbed
    by NHF of their intended purpose of benefitting worthy charitable organizations and
    causes.
    34. During the course of NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings, NHF
    confiscated and liquidated all of the funds and property then contained in
    Highbourne/NHF and DAFoundation/NHF. NHF applied the proceeds to settle and pay
    indebtedness then owed by NHF to an institutional lender and/or other NHF creditors.
    35. In the case of Highbourne/NHF approximately $650,000 was
    confiscated, and in the case of DAF/NHF approximately $1,010 million was confiscated.
    None of these funds and property taken during the bankruptcy proceedings of NHF were
    15
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 15 of 30
    contributed to worthy charitable causes as had been promised, represented, warranted and
    committed by NHF and the Defendants prior to the bankruptcy filing.
    36. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ material
    misrepresentations/omissions, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
    material breaches of duties owed to Plaintiffs, the initial and all subsequent contributions
    to Highbourne/NHF and DAFoundation/NHF were made by Plaintiffs. But for these
    material misrepresentations/omissions, and material breaches of duty, the Plaintiffs
    would not have made the initial and subsequent contributions.
    37. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ material
    misrepresentations/omissions, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
    material breaches of duties owed to them, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages,
    losses and injuries in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
    confiscated from Highbourne/NHF and DAFoundation/NHF during NHF’s bankruptcy
    proceedings. In addition, since the confiscation by NHF during its bankruptcy
    proceedings, Plaintiffs have been required to fund worthy causes with their personal
    funds.
    38. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
    mismanagement of NHF and other misconduct, NHF and its officers, directors, and
    agents have engaged in “excess benefit transactions” which have exposed the officers,
    directors, and agents (and those that have benefitted) to very substantial excise tax
    liabilities under IRC §4958, and by reason of such prohibited transactions, have caused
    NHF to violate the proscription against private inurement set forth in IRC §501(c)(3).
    16
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 16 of 30
    39. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
    mismanagement of NHF and other misconduct, Defendants’ have jeopardized NHF’s
    ability to maintain its tax exempt status under IRC §501(c)(3) based upon: (i) the
    operation of NHF for a private (Houk family) purpose rather a public purpose (the
    “private benefit” proscription), and/or (ii) the inurement of NHF’s net earnings to the
    private benefit of the Houk family (the “private inurement” proscription). In the event
    that NHF’s IRC §501(c)(3) status were rescinded the Behrmanns and Ms. Anderson
    likely will be confronted with substantial additional tax liabilities that they otherwise
    would not confront. And the earnings from their DAFs which had been planned for
    funding charitable purposes will now be reduced or eliminated and will cause them
    financial expense in satisfying those charitable purposes which had been designated to be
    satisfied from the DAFs.
    40. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ material
    misrepresentations/omissions, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
    material breaches of duties owed to them, Plaintiffs have been required to retain and pay
    legal counsel reasonable fees and expenses to seek suitable judicial relief. The legal fees
    and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs are substantial and can be expected to mount
    materially into the future as this litigation continues.
    IV. First Claim for Relief
    (Breach of Implied Agreement and Understanding)
    41. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-40
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    17
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 17 of 30
    42. For good and valuable consideration, Plaintiffs entered into
    implied agreements and understandings with Defendants under which Defendants agreed,
    on a continuing basis, to provide competent and loyal professional services to assist
    Plaintiffs in developing, implementing, evaluating and monitoring an efficient and
    effective charitable giving strategy that fulfilled Defendants’ manifest goals.
    43. Defendants further impliedly agreed and covenanted to provide
    Plaintiffs with timely and appropriate notice of: (i) any change in the roles, duties and
    allegiances of any of the Defendants, (ii) any change in the advice and recommendations
    in respect of making contributions to NHF through Plaintiffs’ DAFs, (iii) any basis for
    concern or inquiry relating to NHF or relating to contributions made to NHF through
    Plaintiffs DAFs, and/or (iv) any adverse developments that might negatively impact the
    Plaintiffs’ charitable giving strategy being implemented through Plaintiffs’ DAFs at
    NHF.
    44. Plaintiffs fully and timely performed all of their obligations and
    duties under these implied agreements and understandings. In particular, Plaintiffs made
    their initial and subsequent contributions to their DAFs at NHF.
    45. Defendants (individually and/or through one or more of the other
    Defendants) materially breached their agreements and understandings with Plaintiffs by
    (i) engaging in robust and concealed self-dealing, and (ii) failing to appropriately, timely,
    fairly and comprehensively publish to Plaintiffs the substantial risks and dangers of
    initiating and continuing charitable giving plans, programs and strategies through NHF.
    Among other things, and without any effort at being exhaustive, Defendants failed to
    18
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 18 of 30
    appropriately, timely, fairly and comprehensively publish to Plaintiffs the profoundly
    material and salient matters described in Paragraph s 33, 38 and 39 of this Complaint.
    46. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    material breaches of their agreements and understandings, Plaintiffs have sustained
    substantial damages, injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash
    and property confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy
    proceedings.
    47. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    V. Second Claim for Relief
    (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)
    48. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-47
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    49. For valuable consideration, Plaintiffs entered into binding
    contractual relationships with NHF.
    50. Each of the Defendants was knowledgeable about the contractual
    relationships that existed between NHF and each of the Plaintiffs. At core, this
    contractual relationship involved NHF’s commitment to faithfully and competently
    administer and execute Plaintiffs’ charitable giving plans, programs and strategies in a
    manner consistent with that which had been represented to Plaintiffs.
    51. Each of the Defendants (individually and/or through one or more
    of the other Defendants) intentionally interfered with the contractual relationships
    19
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 19 of 30
    between NHF and each of the Plaintiffs by causing NHF to breach its contractual
    commitments to Plaintiffs. In particular, Defendants caused NHF to use and consume
    Plaintiffs contributions to their DAFs at NHF in a manner that was wholly inconsistent
    with that which had been represented, promised and committed to Plaintiffs.
    52. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    intentional interference with Plaintiffs contractual relationships with NHF, Plaintiffs have
    sustained substantial damages, injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of
    the cash and property confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s
    bankruptcy proceedings.
    53. Defendants’ intentional interference with Plaintiffs’ contractual
    relations with Defendants were attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton
    and/or reckless misconduct.
    54. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    VI. Third Claim for Relief
    (Negligence)
    55. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-54
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    56. Defendants (individually and/or through one or more other
    Defendants) expressly and impliedly undertook to provide competent and loyal
    professional services to Plaintiffs on a continuing basis. These services were to include
    appropriate, timely and comprehensive advice and counsel in respect of developing,
    20
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 20 of 30
    evaluating, implementing and monitoring an efficient and effective charitable giving
    strategy through NHF that would fulfill Plaintiffs’ manifest charitable giving goals.
    57. Defendants were grossly negligent in the performance of these
    services and duties for the Plaintiffs, and the performance by Defendants was materially
    below the standard expected of other similarly situated charitable giving professionals
    engaged in providing such services to donors across the country.
    58. The negligence of Defendants in the performance of their services
    and duties was attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or reckless
    misconduct.
    59. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    carelessness, negligence and inattention, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages,
    injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
    confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
    60. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    VII. Fourth Claim for Relief
    (Negligent Misrepresentation and Omission)
    61. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-60
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    62. In the course of their dealings with Plaintiffs, Defendants
    (individually and/or through one or more other Defendants) negligently published
    material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. In addition, Defendants negligently omitted to
    21
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 21 of 30
    disclose to Plaintiffs material facts which in equity and good conscience should have
    been disclosed to Plaintiffs in order to insure that the other matters that were published to
    Plaintiffs were not materially misleading.
    63. Among the facts and matters negligently misrepresented to
    Plaintiffs by Defendants are those described in Paragraphs 21 A, 21C, 29A and 29C of
    this Complaint. Among the material facts and other matters negligently omitted from
    those disclosed by Defendants to Plaintiffs are those described in Paragraph 33 (including
    subsections A through L), 38 and 39 of this Complaint.
    64. The negligent misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants
    described herein were attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or
    reckless misconduct.
    65. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    negligent misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial
    damages, injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
    confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
    66. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    VIII. Fifth Claim for Relief
    (Material Breaches of Fiduciary Duties)
    67. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-66
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    22
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 22 of 30
    68. Defendants (individually and/or through one or more other
    Defendants) expressly and impliedly invited and importuned Plaintiffs to repose special
    trust and confidence in them professionals possessing superior knowledge, training, skill
    and abilities in developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring for Plaintiffs’
    exclusive benefit appropriate charitable giving plans, programs and strategies. The
    Defendants agreed to assume responsibility to act for the benefit of the Plaintiffs in this
    undertaking.
    69. As a result of Defendants’ representations and invitation, Plaintiffs
    reasonably and justifiably chose to repose special trust and confidence in Defendants, and
    continued to do so until NHF filed for bankruptcy relief in January of 2009. More
    particularly, Plaintiffs trusted Defendants to services, counsel and assistance in
    developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring an appropriate charitable giving
    plans, programs and strategies that satisfied Plaintiffs’ manifest goals.
    70. Defendants assumed the solemn and non-delegable obligations and
    responsibilities associated with being fiduciaries for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
    Accordingly, Defendants owed Plaintiffs solemn and non-delegable fiduciary duties to
    Plaintiff- including, without limitation, the duties of: (i) professionalism, (ii) good faith
    and fair dealing, (iii) appropriate, timely, full and fair disclosure, (iv) competence and
    prudence, (v) utmost fidelity, and (vi) ethical behavior and conduct.
    71. Defendants materially breached their fiduciary obligations and
    duties owed to Plaintiffs as more fully described above.
    23
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 23 of 30
    72. The numerous material breaches of fiduciary duties by Defendants
    were attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or reckless
    misconduct.
    73. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    material breaches of the fiduciary duties, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages,
    injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
    confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
    74. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    IX. Sixth Claim for Relief
    (Civil Conspiracy)
    75. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-74
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    76. Defendants entered into one or more express or implied
    agreements/understandings pertaining to the establishment and funding of of DAFs at
    NHF (which would later be exploited for Defendants’ individual benefits) via the use of
    material misrepresentations, material omissions and breaches by NHF and one or more of
    the Defendants of contractual, tort and fiduciary obligations as is more fully described
    above.
    77. One or more lawful acts were performed to accomplish this illicit
    and wrongful goal.
    24
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 24 of 30
    78. The civil conspiracy described herein was attended by
    circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or reckless misconduct on the part of
    Defendants.
    79. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    participation in this civil conspiracy, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages,
    injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
    confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
    80. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    X. Seventh Claim for Relief
    (Virginia Consumer Protection Act)
    81. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-80
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    82. The transactions complained of in this Complaint are “consumer
    transactions” within the meaning of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, particularly
    Virginia Code §59.1-198. Plaintiffs were offered and sold specialized services by
    Defendants to be used primarily for personal, family and/or household purposes.
    83. Defendants were “suppliers” within the meaning of Virginia Code
    §59.1-198 because they solicited, sold and engaged in consumer transactions with the
    Plaintiffs.
    25
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 25 of 30
    84. In connection with such consumer transactions, Defendants
    engaged in prohibited practices proscribed by Virginia Code §59.1-200. These
    prohibited practices included:
    A. Misrepresenting that the services provided to Plaintiffs by NHF
    and the Defendants had qualities, characteristics and benefits that they did not possess, all
    in violation of Virginia Code §59.1-200A(5);
    B. Misrepresenting that the services provided to Plaintiffs by NHF
    and the Defendants possessed a particular standard, quality or grade that they did not
    possess, all in violation of Virginia Code §59.1-200A(5); and
    C. Publishing to Plaintiffs and their agents and representatives false
    promises, misrepresentations, and deceptive and fraudulent communications in
    connection with these consumer transactions, all in violation of Virginia Code §59.1-
    200A(14).
    85. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
    unlawful acts, conduct, communication and practices which violated the Virginia
    Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages, injuries and
    losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property confiscated from
    Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
    86. The conduct of the Defendants in respect of these unlawful acts,
    conduct, communication and practices was willful within the meaning of Virginia Code
    59.1-204A, and thus each of the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from each of the
    Defendants, jointly and severally, treble their actual damages.
    26
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 26 of 30
    87. Under the provisions of Virginia Code 59.1-204B, Plaintiffs are
    also entitled to an award against each of the Defendants of Plaintiffs’ reasonable
    attorneys’ fees and court costs.
    88. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    XI. Eighth Claim for Relief
    (Declaratory Relief)
    89. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-88
    of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
    90. Under the terms of Article VIII of the NHF Bylaws, Defendants
    are entitled to indemnification from NHF in respect of the claims alleged herein against
    Defendants “only in accordance with the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code and
    subject to the conditions thereof.”
    91. Pursuant to Section 18-3-851 (a) and 18-3-85 l(d)(2) of the Georgia
    Nonprofit Corporation Code, none of the Defendants are entitled to indemnification from
    NHF as directors of NHF because they: (i) failed to act in good faith, and (ii) improperly
    received one or more personal benefits from the relationships, conduct and transactions
    complained of in this Complaint.
    92. Pursuant to Section 18-3-856(a)(I) of the Georgia Nonprofit
    Corporation code, none of the Defendants are entitled to indemnification from NHF as
    offers of NHF because they: (i) failed to act in good faith, and (ii) improperly received
    27
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 27 of 30
    one or more personal benefits from the relationships, conduct and transactions
    complained of in this Complaint.
    93. Pursuant to Section 18-3-856(a)(2) of the Georgia Nonprofit
    Corporation code, none of the Defendants are entitled to indemnification from NHF as
    offers of NHF because there liability arises out of conduct that involved intentional
    misconduct, and receipt of improper personal benefit.
    94. Plaintiffs are now fully entitled to a judicial declaration under the
    provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 57, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial
    declaration that none of the Defendants is entitled to indemnification from NHF. Further,
    Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration that none of the Defendants is entitled to
    advancement of litigation expenses by NHF and/or a judicial declaration that any
    litigation expenses advanced by NHF must be promptly and personally repaid by any
    Defendant(s) who received any such advance of litigation expenses from NHF.
    95. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
    initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
    or has otherwise occurred.
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHERERORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment
    in their favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief:
    A. Appropriate and comprehensive compensatory damages (including
    appropriate rescission amounts, if any), special damages, consequential damages and
    incidental damages, in an amount sufficient to fully compensate Plaintiffs for the full
    extent of their damages, injuries and losses;
    28
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 28 of 30
    B. Appropriate punitive or exemplary damages;
    C. Treble Plaintiffs’ actual damages as provided in the Virginia
    Consumer Protection Act;
    D. Reasonable attorneys’ fees/expenses;
    E. Pre-judgment interest, moratory interest, post-judgment interest,
    expert witness fees and all costs of suit;
    F. The judicial declarations sought and applied for in the Eighth
    Claim for Relief; and
    G. Such other and further relief as may be appropriate and just under
    the prevailing circumstances.
    JURY DEMAND
    Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
    Dated: January £2-, 2010.
    TYLER, BARTL, RAMSDELLjSkCOUNTS,
    P.L.C.
    By:.
    Gregory H. Coi^nt^ ” \jc& H&T71
    700 WashingtonStreet, Suite216

    Posted by:
    Eduardo Alarcon
    19319 Inverness Dr.
    Spicewood, TX 78669
    (512) 217-6655
    eduardo.alarcon@sbcglobal.net
    Alexandria, Virginia 22314
    Telephone: (703) 549-5000
    Facsimile: (703)549-5011
    Email: Gcounts@tbrclaw.com
    29
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 29 of 30
    G.W. MERRICK & ASSOCIATES, LLC
    Glenn W. Merrick
    Daniel J. Schendzielos -.J^ u / -7 “7 \
    5445 DTC Parkway, Suite 912 v^ 1b / /1
    Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
    Telephone: (303)831-9400
    Facsimile: (303) 771-5803
    E-mail: gmw@tiwmerrick.com
    ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
    30
    Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 30 of 30

  4. geo Says:

    Caution thief Mike hotel near the walking street to get 150 meters (Pattaya, Thailand, August 2011) http://www.mikehotel.com/
    Every year (cella is 6 years old) I was in Pattaya in August month and I stay at the same hotel (MIKE HOTEL has 150 feet of the street walking street) me and my family, so two or three rooms three rooms this year because the family grows. The hotel staff knows us very well and it is in general 25 to 28 days. That you located the situation and the geographical area we do not particularly trust the chests made available for a lot of good reason. my son was hiding his money in his bag about 1500 euros and 35,000 baht, well wrapped in a towel to hide his habit as he stole the 35,000 baht, but not the euro. We watched the video recordings at the reception and there are only two of the four maids who’s back in the room. We call the police we are asking the proof of 35,000 baht currency were shown and it is done call on the field the cleaners to the police station in Pattaya it was 22 pm, but could do nothing because it is denying the facts of the police officer who was the tourist police as a translator told us that Anyway they argued that all of them. we had to leave the hotel the next morning course at the reception we were charged last night (no gifts, (and if you have more money to pay the hotel?), that we who will be in prison) and as a bonus as my wife had gone to look for another hotel with our room key without meaning to stick it on my groom behind me as I had told them that I bring back the key (we are not all dishonest [1 = 50 baht a key comparison which was stolen]) fortunately we all had the phone for my wife then return the key (to tell you that I would have no I dropped it became the thief)
    If I made this post was for you warn of what awaits you at Mike Hotel for theft in any case, I noted that feelings among Thais vis a vis the tourists do not exist (not tourist! translation: maytchay naktongtiao rao tcheu BAHT-MAN may ?.
    They have stolen 35,000 baht may be = 850 euros in change, but I will put this post on every forum that deals directly or indirectly to the tourist

Leave a Reply