THE COURT: Nice to see everybody. I have two issues
that I'd
like to talk about, just feel free. The principal one, as you
know, relates to the funds. Way back, I think in January of
this year, I don't know what prompted it. I think I saw a
report about the funds and not unlike other people had some
really dismal results, financial results. I asked around. I
think we've had the same funds manager, as it were, Gallagher,
for a long time. I don't know them one way or another, but I
do know that in other industries and in other fields, they're
continuously looking at their performance and results and if
they see a dip, they talk to three other people and see who
maybe could do better, or maybe not. And I thought here,
particularly since there's so much money involved, several
billion dollars, and since these are funds really of employees,
actually I thought I had a duty to raise the issue. I did
raise it. I got an immediate response, I think, from
Mr. McGuire was very positive, said we'll get on it right away.
And then I was a little disappointed not long after that to get
a letter which suggested that he wasn't getting on it so fast.
Anyway, there's been back and forth, and now it's November and
I'm a little surprised that we're at November and nobody is
eager as I am to do something. That's the origin. I'm happy
to you from you, Boyd, and also from you, Glen, but I'd be more happy to hear from the trustees, who have been pointed to as
why nothing has happened.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 11/2/16 Court Conference
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Fourth Independent Monitor Interim Report With Exhibits
Pursuant to Paragraph 5.l.iii of the Stipulation and Order filed in this matter on April 18, 2016 (the “2016 Stipulation and Order”), I respectfully submit this Fourth Interim Report as the Independent Monitor (“IM”) of the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “District Council” or “Union”), and its affiliated Taft-Hartley fringe benefit funds (the “Benefit Funds” or the “Funds”).
Sunday, October 23, 2016
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 10/17/16 Court Conference
THE COURT: Don't go down that path, Mr. McGuire.
This issue has been pending since January 2016. I could more easily have gotten the president of the United States to come up with a meeting, and I don't feel that I have any particular inside track. What is it, ten months or so? We could have gotten, I don't know, you name it, Donald Trump. We could have had him here in that period of time. These are busy people.
So that's an unfortunate -- that is going to be an
unsuccessful path for you to go down.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Third Independent Monitor Interim Report With Exhibits
As the Court is well aware, there has been significant discussion over the last six months regarding the Court’s interest in the Trustees’ solicitation of outside auditors to evaluate whether its current financial advisors’ methodologies are consistent with, if not surpassing, typical market practices. After much back-and-forth between the Court and counsel for the Funds, I am genuinely confident that the Trustees will devise an outside review that will satisfy the Court, and that the Funds can engage in such an inquiry without fear that whatever recommendations are made will be binding on them. I expect in the coming weeks that the Co-Chairs of the Trustees, Funds counsel, and I will meet with the Court to further discuss this project.
Third Independent Monitor Interim Report With Exhibits
As the Court is well aware, there has been significant discussion over the last six months regarding the Court’s interest in the Trustees’ solicitation of outside auditors to evaluate whether its current financial advisors’ methodologies are consistent with, if not surpassing, typical market practices. After much back-and-forth between the Court and counsel for the Funds, I am genuinely confident that the Trustees will devise an outside review that will satisfy the Court, and that the Funds can engage in such an inquiry without fear that whatever recommendations are made will be binding on them. I expect in the coming weeks that the Co-Chairs of the Trustees, Funds counsel, and I will meet with the Court to further discuss this project.
Saturday, May 14, 2016
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 4/18/16 Court Conference
THE COURT: Well, who cares, to be perfectly honest with you. Necessary, appropriate, and prudent, I, without knowing more, I would disagree. It seems to me -- and I've been in business myself in the private sector for a long period of my career. This kind of thing is done all the time. It's called an audit. And it's an audit by an outside independent to see if in fact they're right. It's not uncommon for people who have a vested interest in the performance, in saying things are hunky dory and healthy, doing well, don't think it's necessary, etc., etc., it's very common to have that reaction. But from my point of view it's not very comforting.
MR. McGUIRE: I could revisit it with the trustees, your Honor, but I'm fairly confident they will again make the same decision.
THE COURT: And why? Why do they think that it's unnecessary? Yes. You tell me an audit is too expensive to do, costs a hundred thousand dollars and a waste of money. So I don't know if it's too expensive or, you know, we're doing so well, or why.
MR. McGUIRE: Well, this kind of audit, by another firm, of your investment advisor, in fact is highly uncommon in that part of the world.
THE COURT: Oh, that's nonsense. I don't mean to be rude. But all the time, financial performance is monitored, and all the time are outside persons called in to -- it's not necessarily an evaluation to see if there's wrongdoing. It's just an evaluation to see if this money could be better invested. It's not a big deal.
THE COURT: So to your knowledge, Mr. McGuire, has the Department of Labor done a recent audit of the benefit funds?
MS. O'LEARY: There was a pension fund audit, your Honor, done last year that ended with no action, and the Department of Labor has just commenced a welfare fund audit.
THE COURT: What did they say about the issues I'm raising?
MS. O'LEARY: They just asked for a number of documents and then they just said -- they don't tell you specifically what their focus is.
THE COURT: That's not really what I have in mind.
MR. McGUIRE: Your Honor, DOL ordinarily does not evaluate your performance returns.
THE COURT: That's my point. That is exactly my point.
MR. McGUIRE: But the law has entrusted that responsibility to an equal number of union trustees and management trustees. The only guidance provided in the law is that you have to ensure that you secure expert advice, which we've done, and you have to have widely diversified investments, because --
THE COURT: And they don't care what return on investment you get.
MR. McGUIRE: They don't.
THE COURT: They don't.
MR. McGUIRE: No.
THE COURT: Really. That's astonishing.
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
The Final Report of the Review Officer
 |
| Federal Watchdog Dennis Walsh |
Let the bells ring. Though there is much good news, there are those for whom my departure is reason enough for celebration. But I hope that there are also those who reflect on what has been wrought, and on the simple question: what now?
To those who will continue to accept the imperative of working hard and meeting the challenges facing the Union with courage, energy and intellect, but most of all with honor, I will say well done.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Government Response to Motion for Stay
Plaintiff-appellee the United States submits this opposition to the application by non-party appellants Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti for a stay of the entry of a consent decree agreed to by the parties (and already entered by the district court), while their appeal of a previous matter is pending. The application should be denied. First, Nee and Messinetti seek to challenge an order of the district court from which they never appealed, and accordingly this Court lacks jurisdiction. Second, their challenge rests on a misconstruction of the district court’s order, and a misreading of a passing remark by the district judge, and is accordingly meritless.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Memorandum in Support of an Injunction or Stay Pending Appeal or Review
We are objecting to the Monitor having the authority to 'approve' candidates
before they are permitted to run for elected office because this authority bars us from running for elected office without ever having been afforded the required process and alters the theory upon which the case was originally decided, (a decision which we are currently appealing).
Before one can stop any union member from running for elected
office in their union, other than for nonpayment of dues, that member has to have been provided with a fair hearing and the opportunity to defend themselves. The very minimum that can be afforded to any member is the process contained in their unions constitution.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
U.S. v. D.C. Transcript of 11.19.14 Court Conference
THE COURT: I originally thought it was a good idea to meet the staff as it were. I didn't realize at the time how big the staff was. They are certainly welcome. What I thought I would do -- I have gotten your helpful agenda in terms of talking to people -- is use your agenda. So, for example,
Mr. Geiger, we'll start with you. I have a couple of questions. I have read everybody's affidavit. If there is some gist or point that each of you wishes to make, do that first. I am happy to hear it. Just that. So how about
Mr. Geiger, who is the executive secretary treasurer of the District Council.
Nice to meet you. I think we met before.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Stipulation and Order Regarding Appointment of an Independent Monitor
 |
| Glen G McCorty |
Glen G. McGorty is a partner in Crowell & Moring's New York Office and a member of the White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement practice group and the firm's Litigation and Trial Department.
Glen is an experienced trial lawyer and served almost fifteen years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. During his career with the government, Glen prosecuted and supervised a wide range of significant high-profile cases, handling white collar matters such as securities fraud, public corruption, wire and mail fraud, money laundering, tax violations, insider trading, accounting fraud and options backdating cases, and other serious criminal cases, such as RICO enterprises, international narcotics trafficking, and violent crimes including kidnapping and murder.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
September 30, 2014 Status Hearing Transcript and Court Order
A Status Hearing for the District Council of Carpenters was held on September 30, 2014 at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, 17th Floor, New York, New York, 10007. Please see the below document for the transcript of the proceedings and court order.
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Judge Berman OPINION & ORDER
After considering all of the relevant evidence and the arguments advanced by Nee, Messinetti,and the RO,the Court concluded that RO Walsh's decision to remove Nee and Messinetti from their positions as delegates and officers of the Local 157 was not "arbitrary or capricious," did not exceed the authority granted to him under the 2010 Stipulation and Order, and was supported by substantial evidence.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Brief Of Patrick Nee And Levy Messenetti In Response To Courts Request For Submissions
We write in response to the Court's Order dated July 25, 2014, issued following the
Second Circuit's Summary Order dated July 23,2014 in this matter. The Circuit vacated the Court's decision of October 23, 2012 upholding the Review Officer's veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Response to Judge Berman relating to Veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157
We write in response to the Court's Order dated July 25, 2014, issued following the
Second Circuit's Summary Order dated July 23,2014 in this matter. The Circuit vacated the Court's decision of October 23, 2012 upholding the Review Officer's veto of Patrick Nee and Levy Messinetti as officers and delegates of Local 157 and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
We write specifically to address the issues identified by the Court in its July 25 Order, i.e., whether the issues raised by Messrs. Nee and Messinetti in their July 2012 applications"remain ripe for consideration"and whether the RO's June 26, 2012 Notice of Veto was within his authority under the June 2010 Stipulation and Order, with citation to "appropriate background, context, and authority which may help to resolve any 'ambiguity' perceived by the Second Circuit."
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Letter to Judge Berman from the Review Officer
Dear Judge Berman:
I write as requested by the Court in its Order of June 6”‘ to comment on the proposed
Stipulation and Order and Independent Monitor.
I said in the conclusion to my Fifth Interim Report that the shared goal of all concerned
with the District Council “is an autonomous District Council, governed wisely by members who
flourish in a sound democratic system.” I cited Emerson’s guidance that “bolts and bars are not
the best of our institutions” and said “that which will serve the members best” will be the product
of their intellect and hard work, integrity and courage.” Fifth Interim Report at 42. The difficulty
in this regard is of course devising a method to determine when the leaders of the District
Council and its Benefit Funds are capable of meeting the responsibility to prudently conduct the
business of the Union and the Funds in a continually compliant manner. Though that time may
be near, I believe that some mechanism must be in place to insure that the investment of time,
money and intellect made by the parties, the Court and my office is protected.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Office of Dennis M. Walsh The Review Officer 90 Civil 5722 (SDNY) (RMB)
NOTICE OF NOMINATION AND ELECTION
OF DISTRICT COUNCIL OFFICERS
Supervision and Conduct of Elections
Pursuant to Paragraph 5.k of the Stipulation and Order entered on June 3, 2010, in the
matter of United States v. District Council, et al., 90 Civ. 5722 (SDNY) (RMB) and the Court’s
Order of July 7, 2014, the elections referenced herein are being supervised by the Review
Officer.
The nomination and election of officers of the District Council of New York City and
Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the “District
Council”), specifically, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer, President, Vice President, Warden,
Conductor and three Trustees, will take place as follows:
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Judge Berman seeks submmision in Nee Messinetti matter
(I) Whether, as a matter ofjurisdiction, the issues raised by the applications ofMssrs. Nee and Messinetti, dated July 23, 2012 and July 24, 2012, respectively, remain ripe for consideration, given the events and passage of time between the Court's October 23,2012 Order and the Court of Appeals' July 23,2014 Summary Order; and
(2) Whether the Review Officer's June 26,2012 "Notice of Veto" was within the Review Officer's authority under the June 2010 Stipulation and Order, and citing to appropriate background, context, and authority which may help to resolve any "ambiguity" perceived by the Second Circuit.
The parties' respective submissions should be no longer than twenty pages, double- spaced and should be served and filed on or before August 25, 2014.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Nee and Messinetti Win on Appeal
VACATE the district court’s October 23, 2012 order and REMAND the matter for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order.
On June 26, 2012 Review Officer, (RO) Dennis Walsh vetoed Local 157 President Patrick Nee as president and delegate; Peter Corrigan as financial secretary and delegate; Levy Messinetti as recording secretary and delegate; Gauntlett Holness as trustee.
Nee, Messinetti and Holmes filed pro se letters in July 2012 to Judge Berman seeking review of the Notice of Veto.
On October 23, 2012, Judge Berman issued his decision and order: "the court finds that the RO's determinations with respect to Nee, Messinetti and Holmes was supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly the application for review are denied."
Nee and Messinetti appealed Judge Berman's decision to the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, argueing that the RO’s veto authority is limited to “actions” under 5(b)(iii).
The Second Circuit said that the language in the Stipulation and Order was "ambiguous" as to whether the authority applied to the veto of an elected official and remanded the matter to the District Court to determine the intentions of the District Council and the government in this regard.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Court Order from Judge Berman granting the Review Officers application for DC elections.
In anticipation of the 2014 District Council Ofiicer Election, pursuant to his
responsibility for supervising and conducting elections under paragraph 5.}: of the June 3, 2010
Stipulation and Order, the Review Officer has made ministerial changes to the 2011 Final
Election Rules, changing dates to reflect the timing of election procedures in 2014 (rather than
in 2011) and eliminating the unnecessary position of Election Officer (which was held by a former
member of the Review Offic'cr’s staff. The Review Officer seeks the Court's approval of these
new Election Rules (“ERs") in advance of the commencement of the 20l4 election cycle on
August 4, 2014.
