Wesleyan University has brought a lawsuit against former Vice President of Investments and Chief Investment Officer Thomas Kannam and nearly twenty other defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, breach of contract, fraud, statutory forgery, and unjust enrichment, among other charges. Kannam was dismissed from his position at the University on October 13. The University filed its suit in the Middletown Superior Court on November 24, requesting a hearing which could force Kannam to put aside a $3 million pre-judgment remedy that would be paid to the University if it eventually wins its case. There was no public announcement, and Wesleyan’s Director of Media Relations, David Pesci, declined to comment.

According to the University’s pleadings, Kannam violated his contract by devoting most of his energies into personal “entrepreneurial ventures,” which diverted his attention away from his duties at Wesleyan. The University also claims that Kannam improperly exploited his privileged access to Wesleyan’s financial information, some of which was proprietary, for his own benefit, and that he used the University’s funds for his own business and personal expenses.

“We deny all of the allegations in the complaint,” said Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Kannam’s attorney. “If there’s going to be a hearing on the pending application for a pre-judgment remedy, we will at that time put on our defense.”

According to the complaint, Kannam began improperly profiting from his position at Wesleyan in 2001, when he and Ralph Gill, an associate, formed Cross Border Capital Advisors, or CBCA. The University released what it claims are some of Kannam’s email correspondences, sent from both his official email address and a personal account he accessed regularly on his work computer, to support its charges.

“Through my portfolio at Wesleyan, I have a window on some very interesting stock ideas,” Kannam allegedly wrote. “If possible I’d like to cherry-pick the best and capitalize on them. Would it be possible to feed Mike’s [Zaninovich] hedge fund and get paid some incentive on the performance of our ideas? Might be the fastest way to some real dough.”

The University claims that around 2006, Kannam became the owner and Director of Investments for the Belstar Group, where he received his own healthcare plan, pension, and corporate credit card, and continued to take advantage of information about Wesleyan’s investments. Belstar’s Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer reportedly described Kannam as “our critical endowment asset.” The suit also alleges that Kannam took business trips on behalf of Belstar at the University’s expense.

Kannam is also accused of sitting on several corporate boards, including that of his father’s company, Advanced Device Technology Inc., which supplies infrared devices to the United States military, and Vietnam Capital Partners. Wesleyan says that Kannam failed to alert the University President of his involvement in these other boards, which his contract required him to do.

“Another board seat ($=equity)…Whoo, whoo, whoo, whoooooo! They’re adding up,” Kannam wrote in an email to his wife, according to the University.

The University claims that Kannam was aware that his activities represented a conflict of interest, and that he took steps to conceal them. He allegedly created presentations for CBCA under his wife’s name, and, according to the University’s complaint, worked with a partner at Belstar to “draft a letter to the University’s President from an alleged Korean dignitary,” that would conceal his involvement in outside entrepreneurial projects.

“We need to handle this discreetly at Wesleyan since there’s major turnover on our Board now and the new members that are joining take their fiduciary duty seriously in the Sarbanes-Oxley environment,” Kannam allegedly wrote to a CBCA associate in 2005. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act set higher standards for oversight by corporate boards in the wake of the Enron scandal. The suit also argues that Kannam was concerned about the arrival of a new President in 2007, and told his associates that he would have to “lay low.”

When Kannam started working at Wesleyan, his office was located in North College, the main administrative building. The University claims that he lobbied to have the Investment Office moved into its current location at 74 Wyllys Avenue in order in order to conceal his private ventures from his colleagues. The complaint claims that Kannam referred to his office as “The Taj” and used it primarily for his non-Wesleyan business.

The suit alleges that Kannam used a variety of the University’s resources for the benefit of his private ventures. He reportedly offered to have his staff at the Wesleyan Investment Office handle projects for Belstar. In 2007 Kannam allegedly reported that a hedge fund had retained the services of Wesleyan’s Quantitative Analysis Center (QAC), an interdisciplinary data analysis workshop, and that it had agreed to pay a fee of several thousand dollars. This fund was allegedly Belstar, which never paid for the services it received from the QAC. The University claims that Kannam recommended the hiring of several new employees so that he could focus more of his attention on his own ventures. Of one new member of his staff, Kannam reportedly wrote, “I’m so happy. With my extracurricular ventures heating up, he’ll help a lot.”

Finally, the complaint accuses Kannam of fraudulently using University funds for his own expenses on “countless occasions.” The suit alleges that Kannam routinely doctored expense reports to pay for golfing outings, international travel, and even a trip to the 2008 Super Bowl. He allegedly allowed his associates to travel to conferences under the pretense that they were financial advisors to the University. He is also accused of having received “double reimbursement,” when he paid for his expenses using his Wesleyan credit card and then submitted his expenses for cash reimbursement.

The University claims that Kannam’s misconduct was discovered in 2009 and led to his termination, although two days after his departure President Michael Roth sent an all-campus email announcing that Kannam had left to “pursue other opportunities.” The trial has not yet begun, and it remains unclear how the University assembled its case. The Argus will have more updates as new information comes to light.

  • blargwatcher

    When did everyone forget about violating the terms of the contract and fiduciary duty? The expense reports are just one part of Wes’s complaint. It seems like the university is trying to get Kannam’s salary back since he supposedly didn’t do what his contract said he would.

  • alum2

    If what Gill says is true, Wes could be looking at a really ugly countersuit. What the hell are they thinking? It seems like this could have been handled much better. You don’t go nuclear and sue dozens of parties over a simple employment dispute. It’s sloppy, and it can bite you in the ass.

  • Argus Reader

    I would point Mr. Glenn to the following:

    1. Research what “honest services” means in a contract
    2. Check out the threshold $ amount for felony grand theft in Connecticut

    Once you have done both of these, you may repost a response. Perhaps your perspective will change.

  • Alum

    alum2

    gill states no facts. he uses unverified allegations and then weaves a story of armageddon. oldest PR trick in the book. U feel for it.

  • Ron Medley, `73

    Mr. Gill should know better than to come to Wesleyan bearing condescending analogies to the entertainment industry.

    Nowhere in its complaint does Wesleyan allege that endowment funds were “Lost” or stolen (nor was anyone “Kidnapped”, tossed off a “Lifeboat”, or subjected to “400 Blows” by “12 Angry Men”.)

    To put it simply, Mr. Kannam is under “Suspicion” of wiling away “The Hours” as a “Rainmaker” for someone else’s “Glory”.

    I would also just remind readers that a lawsuit is not a race but, a marathon, man. But, hey, keep those posts coming because, that’s entertainment!

  • Argus Reader

    Mr. Medley – while your analysis appears to be spot on, the one lingering issue is why the suit has named defendants beyond Mr. Kannam? Shouldn’t these defendants be simply witnesses if the issues are only alleged expense report theft and “wiling” away “The Hours”? There must be more in the complaint than what has been reported, or there is a placeholder for complaint expansion.

  • Ron Medley, `73

    I’m assuming that under Connecticut law, the same is true as in most states, that a business partner is liable for the tortious conduct of any other partner where that conduct is business related.

  • Anonymous

    The other defendants are accomplices (not simply witnesses) who knowingly benefited from their collusion with the man “wearing two hats”. Kannam was their “secret weapon” wielding “low overhead” proprietary data, expenses, travel, and availability.

    A Wesleyan onlooker might only be aware of a limited amount of disputed expenses and nebulous “extracurricular ventures”, when in fact there was a much larger payoff for Kannam and his fellow defendants. All the “dough” references in Kannam’s emails were not about making cookies or pizza, nor were they about earnings for Wes.

  • Argus Reader

    Then it sounds to me that there might have been attachments to university e-mails (incoming and outgoing), as well as private e-mails that went through the University server, that could have included perhaps proposed and executed partnership agreements, proposed contracts, agreements, etc.

    Often when people think of e-mail, they merely think of text messages – like the excerpts released so far via the complaint – but they forget about attachments.

    I am now thinking the “guts” of Wes’ case may reside in e-mail attachments. This could explain why there are so many specifically named defendents

    Thanks much Mr. Medley. I think you are on to something.

    Have you been following the Galleon case?

  • alum2

    Medley,

    You assume the other parties were privy to the specifics of TK’s contract, or even knew of its existence. Perhaps TK represented to them that he had Wesleyan’s consent? There wouldn’t be much reason to doubt this, as it is a very normal practice for university employees – including CIOs – to have outside gigs. Swensen does, they all do. And professors.

    That’s the truly strange part of this suit – the multiple outside parties. Seems like Wes is trying to weave together some sort of conspiracy theory.

  • johnwesley

    Gil says not one dollar was ever invested from their partnership. Where is the profit either made?

  • alum

    I think Gill is carefully parsing his words on the topic. A legal entity called CBCA didn’t do anything wrong, because it didn’t formally exist. CBCA was their casual name, but it’s not named as a defendant because of its legal non-existence. It’s difficult to believe that CBCA was just a social relationship and not a defacto business venture.

  • Wes Watcher

    johnwesley: dollars do not necessarily have to flow through partnerships to obtain a benefit. there are a lot of places they can flow (other entities, individuals, relatives, friends, overseas accounts, swiss bank accounts, promises for future compensation, actual cash, payments of third party debt, etc.), and compensation does not necessarily have to be in the form of cash (gifts, business referrals, future employement, asset exchanges, deeds, titles, barters, etc.). read the blog entry words very, very carefully. there is considerable “wiggle room” .

  • Ron Medley, `73

    alum 2 –

    I have not read Wesleyan’s complaint, but, it doesn’t sound as if they are alleging conspiracy. Culpability doesn’t always require actual knowledge of the tortfeasor’s acts. The classic example is the master/agent relationship. A good agent will keep their boss apprised of all their actions. But, the law doesn’t require that they do so.

    And, if Wesleyan is not alleging conspiracy, I don’t see where Mr. Gill’s libel allegations would fit in.

  • Argus Reader

    Medley, you are at a higher paygrade than me. Please translate what you wrote into layman’s terms with an example. Thanks.

  • Judge Wapner

    President Roth, Please raise your right hand…

  • Ron Medley, `73

    k.
    You own a car. You lend the car to your neighbor. Neighbor goes out and gets trashed, then hits someone else’s car. You’re liable for the damage to the other car regardless of whether you knew the neighbor was drunk, knew in advance he was going to get drunk or even warned him not to get drunk. The law is full of situations where merely “handing over the keys” — either actually or metaphorically — creates a mutual responsibility for bad things that happen in the future. They don’t have to be part of a plan or conspiracy.

  • Argus Reader

    Thanks Medley, what’s statutory forgery? That is one of the counts. Sounds pretty bad.

  • Outside Observer

    I would wage that the defendant will be able to easily justify all of the expense reports in a satisfactory manner and conjecture that “offered to pay” only when coerced, that in no way should imply that he did anything unreasonable.

  • Common Man

    I guess the esteemed WES Alum see nothing wrong with double billing travel and doing outside work at their day jobs. Rules are for the little people.

  • Ron Medley, `73

    I think that particular phraseology was used simply to differentiate that count from so-called, “common law forgery” which can be be somewhat broader in scope. In general, state statutes will take precedent over common law.

    My extremely superficial web search of Connecticut law suggests that this involves your plain old ordinary, garden variety, forgery: written words falsely issued, completed, or altered in order to deceive, defraud or injure another party; likewise, the possession of such forged instrumentality (See, Conn Gen Statutes, 53a-139). Nothing fancy.

  • Alum-inum

    Outside Observer – that’s a real knee slapper. Google “expense claim fraud” and you’ll see that it’s a criminal offense all by itself, whether or not there is intent or offer to repay afterwards.

  • cls99

    Been trying to follow this, and what I can’t understand is Wes’s incentive for making this big and messy (as opposed to having settled something quietly – assuming there’s culpability on Kannam’s side, which we don’t know yet…all we know is accusations, and we haven’t yet heard from Kannam).

    There can only be two possible reasons: money and/or public relations. On the money side, the suit is only for $3 million. If this is settled, which usually happens, they will collect some fraction of that, let’s say $1.5 million, just for laughs. After legal expenses call it a round million.

    Okay, but what of the downside? Will there be countersuits? I don’t know anything about these other firms being sued, but I work in the financial industry, and I can tell you that the slightest whiff of bad pr can kill a firm these days, post Madoff. If that’s the case, the defendant firms could have very large countersuits for having been dragged into this. I imagine it could easily be multiples of what Wes hopes to collect. And if Wes can’t make its case against Kannam stick, they’re also looking at a whopper wrongful termination suit, and maybe libel/defamation. Rightly or wrongly, Wes has completely destroyed Kannam’s career by taking this public. I imagine he’s rather pissed.

    So as I weigh the possible outcomes, it seems clear Wes has way more to lose than gain, financially speaking.

    So what about p.r.? Does anyone actually think this is GOOD publicity for our school? Hey look at us, we have crappy oversight! And we all know there’s a big capital campaign coming. What’s the tag line for THAT going to be? Give us your money, we’ll handle it badly?

    The fact is that Kannam worked at Wes for 11 years. If he really was such a bad guy, they should have figured it out a long time ago. They didn’t.

    One last point. If Kannam had taken school money and invested it in entities in which he had an interest, then that would be a really big deal, and I would understand all the fuss. But Wes doesn’t allege that he did. This all seems to be about his time (and some expenses), which is a reasonable thing to debate, but didn’t Kannam have a really good track record? I certainly remember reading about this in the alumni rag a while back. If his track record was good, then it seems like he was managing his time well enough.

    Wes should get the disputed expenses back, claim victory, and move on, otherwise it’s going to hurt fundraising and hurt recruiting.

  • Fact Checker

    CLS99, you make some good points, but consider the following:
    1. The $3 million is a minimum. Its just a starting point.
    2. Madoff and the Galleon conspirators operated for years before getting caught and bilked some really smart people and institutions. Did Wes have any Madoff exposure by the way? CDS/CDO exposure? Anyone know?
    3. Track records are subjective. Did the portfolio contain exotic securities as of 2008? The critical measure is what happened to the endowment in 2008? Did it completely tank or were there sufficient mechanisms in place to mitigate the downside? Endowment performance prior to 2008 is interesting, but only if gains survived the financial meltdown, or were preserved moreso than comparable institutions. That’s the only track record that counts.
    4. As someone mentioned, e-mails may contain incriminating attachments, which may explain the statutory forgery charge, among others.
    5. I doubt if Wes would do this without some pretty convincing and overwhelming evidence which demonstrates that Wes was substantially harmed. If it were just expense report fraud, termination and reimbursement would have been sufficient penalites. At a maximum, a civil damages suit against Kannam alone would have sufficed if Kannam refused or was unable to pay up. Obtain a judgment and be done with it.

    We clearly don’t have all the pieces to this puzzle yet.

  • cls99

    Fact Checker:

    I would argue that the totality of Kannam’s track record is what’s important as he’s accused of having spent too much time away from Wes for years, not just 2008. But for what it’s worth, I think the endowment was down 25% in 2008. This is better than Harvard and in line with Yale, if I’m not mistaken. The stock market was down 43%, just to put it in perspective.

    As far as the university having evidence of harm, I don’t think so (other than some expenses, perhaps). If they had it, it would be part of the suit, and it doesn’t look like it is.

    And no, $3 million isn’t the starting point. That’s not how these things work. Generally, you ask for a huge number and get some fraction of it. You don’t magically get more than you ask for.

  • Fact Checker

    cls99 Some homework is in order

    “What we’re claiming is that the damages, we believe, are in excess of $3 million,” said Michael Harrington, one of three lawyers representing Wesleyan.”

    Martin Stein, a New York lawyer who represents defendants Belstar and Voyager, said Tuesday that Kannam’s contract with Wesleyan did not prevent him from working for someone else.

    “Belstar is proud of its affiliation with Mr. Kannam,” Stein said. “We are certain that at the end of the day, both Mr. Kannam and the Belstar entities will be vindicated.”

    “Wesleyan has asked a judge to order the defendants to set aside $3 million for future reimbursement should the university prevail, but that figure could be higher once its lawyers receive their requested documents from the defendants, said Harrington, the Wesleyan lawyer.”

    http://www.courant.com

    Any more questions?

  • Outside Observer

    We have no idea yet why the defendant was double payed on the expense reports, there are a number of possible plausible explanations.

  • Plausible Accounting 101

    Expense Reimbursement Steps

    You prepare your expense report with original receipts

    You submit your signed expense report

    Accounting checks it and approves it

    You get reimbursed.

    You deposit the check.

    You’re whole.

    If someone else provides compensation for the same expenses you either
    1. decline the offer, or
    2. accept it and hand it over to Wes. for deposit into the general fund

    Under no circumstances do you use a Wes credit card for personal expenses.

    End of plausible story

  • Ron Medley, `73

    I have a better question. According to Mr. Gill, Cross Border Capital Advisors (CBCA) never had any assets, a budget, any investors, any employees — wasn’t even “incorporated” (see, Paragraph 2 of Gill Post.) Someone want to tell me, how in the world, such an entity could incur any damages?

  • Outside Observer

    Plausible Accounting – I get it.

    So the issue with ‘expense reports’ was using the wrong credit card (Wesleyan) for some personal expense not billing with the credit card and then filing an expense report on the same item.

  • et al

    What happens if Kannam or any of the other named defendents somehow, and against all possible odds, were to prevail against Wes?

    Is there insurance that covers countersuits or does it come out of the endowment?

    There are dozens of fancy pant law firms filled with hungry lawyers (most of whom had rotten years in 2008 and 2009) capable of litigating virtually anything. Is there any chance Wes become KU?

    Kannam and his family have been publicly crucified. He has nothing to lose in his defense. The cost of litigation defense to Wes is potentially ginormous so I assume that there is sufficient insurance in place.

    The film references in this blog are very amusing. Roth’s latest blog indicates his interest in film studies as well. So, perhaps Wes should sell the movie rights now and recoup Kannam’s endowment losses, expenses and legal fees. Since the cast and crew of 24 are on hiatus until next season a great film could be made on campus and bring lots of revenue and a ton of positive exposure for the school. (As well as providing a platform to tell the truth in a cost effective and entertaining manner) Keifer Sutherland would make a swell Michael Roth, Freddie Prinze could play the whistleblower, and Cherry Jones fits the bill for any number of current trustees. What character would Mary Lynn Rajskub play? On the show she always seems to uncover the truth at any cost. Only question left is whether the producers would have her play someone from the Taj or the corner office. I guess that would kill the ending.

  • Amazed

    I hope this university has something substantial – Wes is casting a very large net for a breach of contract suit.

  • Wondering

    I wonder if Kannam is going to this year’s Super Bowl?

  • 1989

    The attorneys are going.

  • Hat-trick

    Which team will the attorneys root for? Why not both? Wearing two hats is key! Oucheroo!

  • Tiger

    Perhaps they won’t go to the Super Bowl. Torrey Pines is the next weekend. Now that would be the “golf outing of the century!”

  • 1989

    Why not both, indeed. In keeping with the spirit of this case, why not both Torrey and the Super Bowl? Billings galore to be had……whoo, whoo!

  • Quatchi

    You are all wrong. The attorney advisors are going to the Olympics in Vancouver which is the capitol of British Columbia. That would make them Cross Border “Capitol” Advisors! Whoo, whoo, whoo, whoooooo!

  • 1989

    Apologies, I forgot to consider the attorneys who will be participating in the multiple counter-suits

  • Oucheroo!!!!!!

    My very most favorite quote from the Hartford Courant article:

    “Belstar is proud of its affiliation with Mr. Kannam,”
    – Martin Stein, a New York lawyer who represents defendants Belstar and Voyager

  • Mezzanine

    Wes -525 1/2

  • Potential Investor

    Not a very user friendly website these days

    http://www.belstargroup.com/

  • Livin’ la Vida Loca

    If you Google “Cross Border Capital Advisors”, you find a company with the same name which attended multiple finance and hedge fund multi-day conferences at some of the best resorts and spas in the world. The list is truly impressive (and may not be complete).

    Hyatt Regency Newport Hotel and Spa, Newport, Rhode Island
    Westin Chicago River North, Chicago, IL
    Loews New Orleans Hotel, New Orleans, LA
    Bacara Resort & Spa , Santa Barbara, California
    La Costa Resort & Spa, Carlsbad, CA
    Ritz Carlton, Laguna Niguel, CA
    Fairmont Hotel, Monte Carlo, Monaco
    W San Francisco Hotel, San Francisco, CA
    Ritz Carlton, Amelia Island, FL

    The meetings were sponsored by Opal Financial Group http://www.opalgroup.net

  • Another board seat ($=equity)

    What’s this? Though a Robert J. Mark is a defendant in the Wes lawsuit, I don’t remember this firm being mentioned anywhere? Kannam is on its “advisory board”.
    http://www.stjic.com/advisory_board.php

  • Korean Dignitary

    I’m a Seoul man!

  • Argus Reader

    According to LinkedIn, a Ralph Gill has established a company called Targa Capital Partners in Toronto, Canada. http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/ralph-gill/a/15/b88
    http://targacapital.com/

  • Cartman Loves Canada

    This is interesting. If this is the same Ralph Gill, he has established a new venture called Targa Capital Partners in Toronto, Canada
    http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/ralph-gill/a/15/b88

  • Chef

    Truly cross border now

  • Protect Thyself

    It would seem to me that Mr. Ralph Gill’s commentary above is strictly focused on protecting himself. This case will be interesting once all the defendants start going after each other.

  • hedger

    the whole Belstar deal is interesting, Yun and his attorney Stein are well known for this kind of thing, have a look at NY court filing against Yun-Belstar, by Kenneth Orr, the guy who designed Belstar funds that they got rid of, cheaper than paying him, what a gang

Twitter