Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital v. Spitzer
715 N.Y.S.2d 575, 186 Misc. 2d 126, 1999 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 663 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York's Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511, a petition to sell substantially all of a charitable corporation's assets must be denied if the board fails to demonstrate that the consideration is fair and reasonable and that the sale will promote the corporation's purposes. A board's duty of obedience requires it to prioritize its historic mission, and a decision to liquidate assets to fund a new mission must be a carefully chosen last resort, not an action of convenience driven by the value of underlying real estate.
Facts:
- Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital (MEETH) was a world-renowned, acute care specialty hospital founded in 1869, with a mission that included patient treatment, post-graduate instruction, and research.
- Facing financial pressures from changes in healthcare economics, MEETH's Board of Directors began to consider strategic options for the hospital's future.
- In October 1998, a group of MEETH physicians sent a memorandum to the board detailing a 'crisis.' The Board President, Lindsay Herkness, reacted negatively, threatening to sell the hospital if the doctors gave him 'a hard time.'
- In January 1999, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) made an unsolicited offer to purchase the hospital property, prompting the MEETH board to retain the investment bank Shattuck Hammond as a strategic advisor.
- Shattuck Hammond's retention agreement included a 1% 'Transaction Fee' contingent on the closing of a sale, creating a financial incentive for them to recommend a sale of assets rather than a merger or affiliation.
- Shattuck Hammond concluded that MEETH's 'business had no value' but its real estate had considerable value, recommending the board 'monetize the assets.'
- Other major medical institutions, including Continuum Health Partners and Lenox Hill Hospital, expressed interest in affiliations or mergers that would preserve MEETH's mission as an acute care hospital, but the MEETH board and Shattuck Hammond did not seriously pursue these options.
- The MEETH board ultimately approved a sale of its 64th Street facility to MSKCC and a real estate developer, Downtown Group/Colony Capital, with a plan to close the hospital and use the proceeds to fund new, free-standing Diagnostic and Treatment (D&T) centers.
Procedural Posture:
- Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital (MEETH) filed a petition in the New York Supreme Court, New York County (a trial-level court) seeking judicial authorization to sell substantially all of its assets.
- The Attorney General of the State of New York, as a necessary party under the governing statute, formally opposed the petition.
- The court held a 13-day evidentiary hearing on the merits of the petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the proposed sale of substantially all of Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital's assets satisfy the requirements of Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 that the consideration is fair and reasonable and that the sale will promote the hospital's corporate purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Bernard J. Fried, J.
No. The proposed sale does not satisfy the requirements of Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 511 because the consideration was not fair and reasonable, as it failed to account for the hospital's value as a going concern, and the sale would not promote the corporation's purposes, but rather would improperly abandon its historic mission. The court applied the two-pronged test from N-PCL § 511(d), which requires a showing that (1) the consideration and terms are fair and reasonable, and (2) the purposes of the corporation will be promoted. The court found that MEETH failed on both prongs. First, the transaction was not fair and reasonable because the board, advised by a conflicted consultant, only considered the value of the real estate and wrongly concluded the hospital's 'business had no value.' This ignored MEETH’s value as a going concern, its renowned name, and the substantial interest from other hospitals willing to invest millions to preserve it. Second, the sale would not promote MEETH's corporate purposes because the decision to sell was made first, driven by the real estate offer, and the new mission (D&T centers) was created afterward as a justification. This violated the board's 'duty of obedience' to be faithful to the organization's core purposes. A board's primary duty is to preserve its mission, and abandoning it for a new, unstudied venture is only an option of last resort after a reasoned determination that the original mission is no longer viable.
Analysis:
This decision is a foundational case in not-for-profit corporate governance, establishing that a charitable board's fiduciary 'duty of obedience' to its mission is paramount. It clarifies that under N-PCL § 511, courts will conduct a substantive review of a board's decision-making process, not just the financial terms of a sale. The ruling serves as a powerful check on boards tempted to abandon a difficult mission by liquidating valuable assets for a new purpose, ensuring that such a drastic change is a carefully considered last resort, not a strategic choice of convenience. It puts boards on notice that they must fully explore all options to preserve their mission and cannot rely on financially conflicted advisors when making such fundamental decisions.
