logo
  • Nonprofit News
  • Management
    • Boards and Governance
    • Communication
      • Framing & Narratives
    • Ethics
    • Financial Management
    • Fund Development
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Philanthropy
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Donor-Advised Funds
    • Foundations
    • Impact Investing
    • Research
    • Workplace Giving
  • Policy
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Housing
    • Government
    • Taxes
  • Economic Justice
    • Economy Remix
    • Economy Webinars
    • Community Benefits
    • Economic Democracy
    • Environmental Justice
    • Fair Finance
    • Housing Rights
    • Land Justice
    • Poor People’s Rights
    • Tax Fairness
  • Racial Equity
  • Social Movements
    • Community Development
    • Community Organizing
    • Culture Change
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Gender Equality
    • Immigrant Rights
    • Indigenous Rights
    • Labor
    • LGBTQ+
    • Racial Justice
    • Youth Activism
  • About Us
  • Log in
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Webinars
    • Leading Edge Membership
    • Sponsored Webinars
    • Economic Justice
  • Tiny Spark Podcast
  • Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Leading Edge Membership
Donate
Deaths, Mergers and Acquisitions, Nonprofit Births and Deaths

Nonprofit Bankruptcy Leads to Destruction of Cancer Research

Michelle Lemming
August 10, 2016
Share40
Tweet
Share28
Email
68 Shares
Garbage
Waste: they dispose of it properly, for you / Quinn Dombrowski

August 6, 2016; Boston Globe

An investment of more than $30 million into ten years of biological cancer research has been destroyed following a Chapter 11 dispute that has lasted for over two years.

Agencies including the National Cancer Institute, Institute of Health, Department of Energy and NASA invested in the research led by scientist Dr. Lynn Hlatky. Over the course of their work, researchers had “successfully transformed normal human cells into human cancer cells.” Hlatky said that the chances of the team resuming its work with all of its material and equipment now gone are slim.

The Center of Cancer Systems Biology was originally opened on the grounds of St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Brighton in 2006 when the medical center was still a nonprofit. But in 2010, St. Elizabeth was acquired by the for-profit Steward Healthcare System. Hlatky reported to the court that if the Center were to successfully continue to secure federal and charitable funding, they would need to remain nonprofit.

GeneSys Research Institute (GRI), which was established the same year to provide research and development in the field of biotechnology, agreed to serve as the Center’s nonprofit fiduciary. This created a win-win for the two agencies until the winds of change began to shift. By September of 2013, the researchers faced the shocking reality that they had no cash flow. GRI was accused of “misuse of funds” connected to an estimated 4 million of the Center’s charitable dollars. The local CBS station reported that the researchers were “let go” and their work abandoned. It was “an incredible misappropriation of monies,” said Dr. Philip Hahnfeldt, the Center’s senior investigator.

A bankruptcy lawsuit evolved to include an ongoing fight led by the Center’s top scientists to preserve the Center’s ten years of cancer research. Repeated messages focused on a plea to pay attention to the cy pres doctrine (a legal French term that means “so near/close”). Nonprofit Quarterly’s report on nonprofit closures can still be found on the Center’s Facebook page, along with court documents and calls for help.

Numerous agencies did come forward in protest. Tufts University School of Medicine filed an objection to abandoning materials “critical to cancer research.” The school also volunteered to accept the materials through a newly formed nonprofit created by Hlatky. The Department of Energy (DOE) requested that the lab be provided the ability to stay on site for an extended time until the materials were moved. DOE said that they had funded some of the lab’s “significant” research and offered to work with Hlatky to designate a site to accept the transfer of materials.

The court reported that as a nonprofit, GRI had not complied with Massachusetts’ non-bankruptcy law and required two key action items. First, public charities and research labs were to be solicited to determine their interest in accepting the Center’s research materials. Second, the court required that the burden fall on GRI to prove that the property of the estate was in fact “burdensome and of inconsequential value.”

This work was conducted and a report given back to the court. GRI stated that no party had stepped forward to “take custody…of the biological materials despite marketing efforts.” However, they later stated that no party had offered to take custody “on terms that were beneficial to the estate.”

They also argued that the facilities continued to be used well beyond the term of lease, which was estimated to have accumulated over $90,000 of unpaid rent to St. Edwards in the year 2015. In addition, the group was incurring out-of-pocket costs, including weekly replacement of gas tanks, totaling approximately $600 a week with a concern for “storing potentially hazardous materials without the supervision of a financially or operationally responsible party.” In comparison, the disposal of the materials was ultimately estimated to cost in excess of $100,000.

GRI representatives reported estimated values as requested. Assets and liabilities of the estate were listed, including 32 mice valued at $0 and “biological specimens and/or tissue samples” listed at an “unknown value.”

Despite their best efforts to protect the preservation of charitable assets for purposes as near as possible to that of their original intent, the researchers were not able to alter the course of events. Tubes of “cells, proteins, pieces of human tumor tissue and other biological samples” were incinerated. In the Boston Globe, Hlatky is reported as responding, “It’s heartbreaking”.

Prior to the court ruling, GRI’s financial statement made sense. The millions of dollars invested by major institutions, the time invested by the staff and partners, and the value of the advancements made by the researchers could not yet be known. The inability to adequately place a value of the accomplishments achieved by these scientists changed this budget line item from “unknown value” to $0 in the court of law.—Michelle Lemming

Share40
Tweet
Share28
Email
68 Shares

About The Author
Michelle Lemming

For the past fifteen years Michelle has served in Executive Director/CEO positons in the healthcare field. She is currently the founding CEO of the Texoma Health Foundation in North Texas and Southern Oklahoma, responsible for overseeing over $55M in public assets. Over her career, her core areas of focus have included access to uninsured services, healthcare disparity, integration of care, the built-environment, health information technology, lobbying, disaster recovery, foundation conversions, grantmaking, place-based philanthropy, family endowments and donor-advised funds. Over the last three years she has had the ability to gain experience in grantmaking tied to the arts and education. She has also had the privilege to serve as a national consultant, as well as a federal and state grant reviewer.

Related
The Corporate Capture of Weed: Where Will the Money Go from This Nonprofit’s Sale?
By Ruth McCambridge
November 20, 2019
Congratulations, You Won! Now Hand Over the Money
By Marian Conway
November 18, 2019
Lord Foundations Distribute $1 Billion in Four Big Flexible Gifts
By Ruth McCambridge
November 14, 2019
A US President who Cannot Be Trusted around Charity Fined $2M
By Ruth McCambridge
November 8, 2019
A Nonprofit Odd Couple: Two New England Colleges Merge
By Ruth McCambridge
November 7, 2019
Mission, but No Margin: The Tragedy of a Los Angeles Nonprofit’s Demise
By Steve Dubb
November 6, 2019
other posts by The Author
Hollywood-Established Bennet Omalu Foundation Vanishes
By Michelle Lemming
November 29, 2016
Atlantic Philanthropies’ Spend-down May Be a Bit Misnamed
By Michelle Lemming
November 16, 2016
Integrity In and Out of the Office: Is Social Media a New...
By Michelle Lemming
October 31, 2016
A Series on Sensemaking Organizations
The Sensemaking Organization: Designing for Complexity
The Sensemaking Mindset: Improvisation over Strategy
Structuring for Sensemaking: The Power of Small Segments
logo
Donate
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletters
  • Write for NPQ
  • Advertise
  • Writers
  • Funders
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Subscribe to View Webinars

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by GDPR plugin
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.