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.

  • Anonymous

    1:21 you’re only hearing the Administration spin machine side of the story. If you read, the NYT article, their case sounds like a crock

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/nyregion/06wesleyan.html

  • Anonymous

    Is it always legal for employees emails to be monitored and contents circulated in pretrial publicity?

    http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2001dltr0026.html

    To me, this ‘whistleblower’ explanation just sounds too convenient for the university. Since a whistleblower is “protected” so there is no way to verify the veracity of that claim or if the Administration was going through Kannam’s email for some time in veangeful attempt to dig up dirt (which he obviously succeeded) in order to look up whatever statements he made in email vis a vis “360 reviews”

  • doubtful

    look through a decade of emails and you can tell any story you want.

  • student

    Making jokes about “two rupee whores” and slumdog millionaire soundtracks because of Kannam’s India heritage is irrelevant. Making these generalizations based on heritage is racist.

  • anon

    Slumdog millionaire was about muslim Indian kids in Mumbai. It is success and love story.

    If I understand your comment correctly, you must be implying that Kannam has a muslim indian heritage? How do you know that? You do not. He attends church in Middletown.

    You look at the world through a pair of liberal ‘western eyes’. It is this type of blindness that paved the way to believe that victory in Iraq would be swift and that the US would be welcomed with open arms.

    Furthermore, it is Kannam, according to Wesleyan, who introduced the ‘indian heritage’ theme as you call it. He is the one who mocked it according to Wes.

    Racist, I think not. Stereotype, most definitely.

    Witness:
    The Taj
    Indian Wedding
    Ratan Tata

  • stupid is as stupid does

    4:16 kannam was sloppy in his use of email. he should have used a personal blackberry or iphone for his personal communications. he was lazy, thought everyone else was stupid, and guess what? he got caught. there has never been and never will be an expectation of privacy for work email where the employer provides the employe a computer, an e-mail address, and a communications linke – and pays for it.

  • Anonymous

    Yes. so I guess the moral of the story is go ahead and use a blackberrry in case some vengeful coworker wants a piece of you.

    But as the New York Times states:
    “Mr. Kannam, then 33, became Wesleyan’s first in-house investment strategist. In a glowing 2006 profile in the alumni magazine, Mr. Kannam was praised for meeting the goal set by the university’s president: putting Wesleyan’s return on its endowment in the top 5 of the 20 highest-rated liberal arts colleges in the annual U.S. News & World Report survey.”

    Did you expect him to NOT have a network of financial associates that he corresponded with? Its not like he was selling auto parts out of the Taj. And maybe just maybe some of his network contacts HELPED Wesleyan’s endowment become what it was in 2006.

    You say he is he supposed to spend 8 hours of his working day like a monk cloistered in a monestary and that would have had a better net effect on the endowment??

  • anon

    7:54 Most of what you say is correct, with one big exception. He allegedly got greedy and crossed the line. Too bad for him.

    ps. most people have personal phones and private phones in corporate america. Mix the two and you are asking for trouble

  • student

    5:12, most of your points make no semblance of sense.

    I know Kannam is not Muslim and never thought that he was; neither did the people who posted those comments. They posted them because of Kannam’s Indian heritage. I think it is irrelevant and disrespectful to bring his Indian heritage (regardless of religion) into discussion.

    Comments include:

    “You are Bollywood worthy. Jai ho daddy.”

    “I miss the Indian tunes on our Musak and, my favorite, Daddy’s Slumdog CD

    I miss the Pot Luck curry lunches with fresh goat milk and glazed sheep testicles.”

    -both from “the taj”

    “Foxwood’s would be an appropriate employer. Afterall, it would be Indians looking after Indians. ”
    -about Kannam’s future career

    These are just a couple…Wesleyan is such a good school, but writing things like these makes it look like a home for ignorant students who lack respect of other cultures. Your words are just as bad as Kannam’s alleged actions, except the latter have not even been proven true.

  • you are my destiny

    student-it is kannam who mocked heritage. turn on television – simpsons southpark bbc’s goodness gracious me (incredibly funny) all kal penn characters (van wilder’s rise of taj is best -taj mahal badalandabad). ok for media but not ok for wes student?

  • 7:41

    Wesleyan enjoys a well-deserved reputation as a liberal, politically correct institution. And so, no, it is not “ok for wes student” to mock another’s heritage.

  • Anonymous

    What a waste of time and endowment funds on the legal time and expense, testimony etc to pursue for some jaywalking misdemeanors.

  • beware

    looks like the defendants are posting comments now

  • whore pc committee

    The following are disallowed from now on

    -2 euro whore
    -2 lira whore
    -2 bit whore
    -2 yen whore
    -2 peso whore
    -2 franc whore
    -2 rubel whore
    -2 yuan whore
    -2 pence whore
    -2 penny whore
    -2 rupee whore

    a whore monetary designation identifies national heritage and creates disrespect. heritage neutral monetary designations must be used from now on.

    relative worth based on prevailing exchange rates further erodes certain national heritages

    thank you for your attention to this important matter

  • wrong thread

    learn all about whores in wes’s new “intellectually stimulating” class on porn

  • heritage neutral society

    source: heritage neutral monetary equivalents for whore pricing

    barrels of oil
    tons of wheat
    gallons of gasoline
    number of apples

    for example, that person is a two gallon whore or that person is a two apple whore

  • I can see why

    Kannam had to maintain a network of contacts outside this university setting. The current mix would drive anyone INSANE (maybe a judge or potential middletown jury reading this thread will agree)

  • moonlighting

    1:52 what you say is incredibly naiive and irrelevant.

    the same could be said of the university president or any other high ranking official. even the sports director.

    the true test. would there be a conflict if roth held outside jobs? you bet there would be.

  • Two words

    Cheney Halliburton.

  • wes pc?

    741 if wesleyan is merely a politically correct institution, why are we here? to simply get indoctrinated in political correctness would be a complete waste of time and money.

  • wes pc?

    152 your post makes no sense beyond the first sentence

  • Alum/long time investment pro with knowledge

    Let’s clear the air…notwithstanding the “mixed messages” from the writer of the recent NYT piece there are two issues – one major and one less so: (a) while many employment contracts for CIO’s in the business allow for outside “advisory” relationships, few if any allow for specific economic interests (read partner/ownership rights) in any entity while you are acting in a fiduciary capacity role at an institution such as a foundation/endowment/museum – IT IS A BASIC, INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST (e.g. read e-mail comments about cherry picking ideas for incentive comp!) . Therefore regardless of our university’s investment over the time period – which was acceptable but could have been enhanced given better alternative manager selection – IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL BREACH OF CONTRACT TO DO WHAT HE DID (apparently twice – ’01,’06), nobody looked the other way because it clearly was not fully disclosed!!!!!!!! (b) padding expense accounts, extended trips for other purposes, etc. all smacks of a sense of entitlement that is egregious – he was making close to $500,000 a year as a “manager of managers” for what at best is a mid sized college endowment while using other unversity resources to “do his bidding/work”! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE ALUMNI AND BLOGGERS TOGETHER AND LET’S FULLY SUPPORT OUR OUTSTANDING (AND RELATIVELY NEW PRESIDENT WHO DID NOT HIRE KANNAM!) IN HIS QUEST TO DO THE RIGHT THING, PUT THIS UNSEEMLY CHAPTER BEHIND US AND GET ABOUT THE BUSINESS OF EDUCATING BRIGHT STUDENTS AND PUTTING WESLEYAN BACK ON TOP!!!!!!!!

  • You have my support

    Bravo 7:51, Well composed and spot on.

    I wish some of these kids would wake up rather than go into an ‘anti’ administration reflex mode. It makes them look foolish, out of touch, and not so bright.

    This ain’t South Africa, Iraq, or Vietnam. Its an allegation of self-dealing and self-enriching fraud by an individual entrusted with helping secure the future of Wes.

  • !!!! And

    from my perspective seems desparate.

  • Anonymous
  • Alum Fan

    GO ROTH

  • Alum/long time investment pro with knowledge

    BTW, the “apologists” like alum2, dj54 and cls99 are dead wrong! Michael Roth, our outstanding president for the past several years, is doing the correct and ethical thing: he did not hire Tom Kannam and when it was unearthed this past spring/summer the depths of his specific breach of fiduciary responsibilities, outrageous conflict of interest and outright fraud he took appropriate action….nobody at the university, on the board of trustees or the PSC is covering anything up – regardless of the silly perception that we are looking for a scapegoat given a significant drop in endowment value as of 6/30!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • cls99

    I’ve been reading through this thread, and most of the posters come across like fatuous 16 year olds who just read their first political science book and now know with 100% certainty how the world works. Yeah, get Kannam! He’s Evil! In fact, let’s GET HIM IN ALL CAPS!!!

    Let’s be clear about a few things. Here’s a list of things Kannam has been accused of:

    1. Violating his contract by spending too much time on outside ventures.
    2. Double billing expenses.

    Now here’s a list of things he has NOT been accused of:

    1. Damaging the endowment.
    2. Allocating endowment money to his outside ventures.
    3. Insider trading.

    Or even:

    4. Child molestation
    5. Wife beating

    Yes, both those last things were on here.

    Now, I will be the first to admit that Kannam doesn’t come off as someone I’d like to have a beer with. He comes across as greedy and maybe a little desperate. And no doubt this very fact has fueled many of the immature, irresponsible rants on this thread.

    But when you distill this down to what he’s actually accused of, it’s a run-of-the-mill contract dispute. Firing Kannam? No issue. Acting like this guy is a cross between Bernie Madoff and Lucifer? Grow up.

    My prediction: the whole thing goes to arbitration and Wes collects ten grand in disputed expenses. Not great, considering they must be spending hundreds of thousands.

  • Ron Medley, `73

    Arbitration would have to be a part of the contract itself, which is unlikely.

  • Anonymous

    Alum/long time investment pro with knowledge – how’s your application for the CIO position coming along – you seem to be sucking up for it just fine !

  • Anonymous

    I wonder what kind of oral agreements defendant had with prior administration. Guess will have to call Bennet up on the witness stand.

  • Alum/long time investment pro with knowledge

    CLS 99/Anonymous – (a) he damaged the endowment by using university resources to do work for outside parties, (b) he sought to gain personal financial benefit by having inside information on alternative managers to share with third parties, (c) I have no interest in the CIO role at all – I am a loyal, knowledgeable alum with decades of experience in the business and you are a clown!

  • another alum

    Alum/long time – i guess you are right – going after him in a lawsuit would be better than not as a premtive move other wise the consequences would have possibly been a “wrongful termination” suit – not good considering the other cases Wesleyan is currently facing.

  • The Real World

    cls99 and ‘another alum’

    are you guys for real? i am so glad you guys are not involved in this suit (though maybe you are advocates for the defense).

    your notion of how the world works is devoid of any reality.

    run of a mill contract dispute?

    preemptive move against wrongful termination?

    YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS

  • Observer

    To: Alum/long time investment pro with knowledge

    Keep up your excellent posts. It is clear that these clowns have no idea what they are talking about.

  • anonymous

    The judge issued an order in the Kannam case. Do any of you legal eagles know what it means? I thought SCRAM was some sort of monitoring device???????

    102.10 02/23/2010 Court ORDER
    SCRAM 2/24/2010
    RESULT: Granted 2/23/2010 HON ROBERT HOLZBERG, J

  • legal non eagle

    looks like whoever filed a motion it got granted.

  • cls99

    Alum/long time:

    First, yes, he did work for outside parties, but Wesleyan is not even alleging that this harmed the endowment. The endowment seems to have outperformed its peers. So you are wrong on that point.

    Second, as to “seeking personal gain using inside information,” you are wrong on this point as well, because what he was doing (or wanted to do – the suit does not say he actually did it) didn’t constitute any legal definition of insider trading. If you are truly in the investment biz, which I doubt, you would know this.

    Insider trading requires use of inside information. What hedge funds have in their portfolios is not inside information the way, say, knowing in advance of a merger or earnings announcement is. What Kannam did was more akin to taking an idea you hear on CNBC and using it for yourself. (I know this isn’t precisely analogous because many hedge funds don’t publicize their positions, but legally speaking, it is precisely analogous.)

    Sleazy, yes. Illegal, no. Glad he’s gone, he was a clown. But that’s beside the point that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    And I love all these posts that say things like I CAN’T BE SERIOUS but don’t refute a single point.

    I suspect, in the end, the only damage done to the endowment will come from the economics of this case.

    And I, too, would be interested to know the legal update.

  • anon

    cls99

    You are right. No insider trading is alleged. What is alleged is the misuse of confidential information. This could have been the transfer of confidential information provided to Wes to Kannam’s 2nd, 3rd or 4th employer or others. Remember what NDAs are? There are a multitude of ways he could have leveraged confidential information for his financial benefit. You know that. And all of this was proprietary to Wes. Could Wes have benefitted, or did Kannam decide he was going to cherry pick the best and leave the rest to Wes.

    Please put your thinking cap on, envision that you are Kannam, and then figure out how he leveraged everything under the sun to maximize his current and future income, right down to the alleged expense fraud.

    Also spend some time closely looking at all the quotes in this case. You can easily create a situation where Wes $ was invested in Belstar for example. I recall the quote from the Belstar lawyer was that not one penny of Wes $ was inappropriately invested. Does that preclude Wes dough going into Belstar funds? I think not.

  • Wondering

    cls99 sounds an awful lot like Mr. Gill. The syntax, vocab and arguments are very close.

  • Sad

    Whatever the outcome I find some tragedy in this. There is no doubt that Kannam was an overachiever, an Ivy League graduate interested in finance and financial connections that met his goals. Probably had all his work done for the week by mid-day Wednesday, that led to idle time and perhaps alleged self-sabotaging behavior.

  • Alum/long time investment pro

    Once again cls 99 you misrepresent what I said: (a) I indicated he misused university resources – read students doing research, (b) I indicated the performance could have been better – it was not not top decile and you can check it out, (c) with multiple decades of experience on both the buy and sell side of the business, I clearly know the difference between actual insider trading and “cherry picking hedge fund/pe investment ideas from outside managers of the endowment – of which there were a significant number over many years – for personal gain”. Your comparison of using CNBC information versus specific hedge fund positions/strategies is simpleminded and ludicrous! BTW, I have direct experience in all aspects of the institutional and UHNW marketplace, serve on multiple nonprofit boards and am well regarded by the president, BOT and PSC. I am really beginning to think your allegiance is completely off and flawed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Wondering

    Don’t worry Alum/long time investment pro. cls99 is a surrogate for the defendants, or someone who simply does not understand much of anything, or one of the defendants.

    His “insider trading” thesis is a red herring (or he’s really dumb). There are no classic insider trading allegations (i.e., SEC).

    This is all about NDAs.

  • Alum/long time investment pro

    I’d like to point out since I chose to respond to this blog in the last few days after two months of speculation, innuendo and character assassination, my clear, cogent and logical explanations have been appaulded by many others (you have my support, anothe alum, observer, anon, wondering) because I have a keen understanding of the situation and speak the truth from decades of ethical practices in this very business. Clearly, the apologists are merely deflecting the critical core issues either out of ignorance or CYA tactics…happy to completely clear the air at the conclusion of this whole tawdry affair!!!!!!

  • You go girl

    Alum/long time investment pro

    Whose character was assassinated? Kannam’s?

    He managed to do that on his own so far allegedly.

  • Alum/long time investment pro

    Aside from the snide comments by apologists directed at me (those who are truly clueless and way out of there league on this one!), I was referring to selected denigrating remarks focused on our president and BOT. While I abhor the racist and scatalogical remarks directed at our former CIO, I have known Tom Kannam for many years and this sad turn of events speaks volumes about personal greed destroying what could have been a successful second half of a 45 year olds career in the E&F investment world!!!!

  • You go girl

    You mispelled “there”

    The comments about Kannam were not racist. Indian is not a race. It is a country. And it is made up of at least 20 cultures. It is both muslim and hindu. Light skinned and dark skinned.

    Furthermore, Kannam was the one who launched the Indian humor through his e-mails. Its fair game.

    Poor taste for the few, yes. Racist, not even close. Funny, you’re damn right. Its hilarious.

    Roth practices full disclosure which is a breath of fresh air.

    I am personally appalled at Wes students. I guess a conservative, overpaid administrator who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar is apparently quite a conundrum for Wes libs. It shouldn’t be, but apparently it is.

  • “Business Ethics”

    I think that Wesleyan was misadvised by his business ethics experts. It would have been better for Wesleyan if they just terminated him and called it a day. After all even the “business ethics” experts here would have to admit you need a certain Machievellian disposition to be involved in finance management which can run against the grain
    of some Humanist sytems of ethics. (notice I did not use the phrase “Ivory Tower” as quoted in the New York Times)

    Which choice will be better for the endowment in the long run? Guess time will tell. I hope it all works out for the best.

  • Up In Smoke

    hey “Business Ethics”, put the doobie down next time you post. that’ll give the rest of us a fighting chance to understand you

  • Alum/long time investment pro

    (a) fair catch on the mispelling – and perhaps I should use ethnic instead of racist in the future…my points still stand (b) there is nothing Machievellian about prudent and effective investment management for a college endowment…look at the other 750 schools in the NACUBO study – quality work here generates alpha/better investment returns which help schools with operating expenses/financial aid etc. In the real world, there is a big difference between unethical business practices and responsible money management!

Twitter