Top officials of Seattle U and Gonzaga University in Spokane, the state's other Jesuit higher education institution, released multiple statements over the past two days that emphasized the separation between the schools and the Oregon Province, the Roman Catholic order covering Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska.
"I want to assure you that Seattle University is not a part of this bankruptcy proceeding," said the Rev. Stephen Sundborg, Seattle U's president, adding that the school is "not owned, operated or controlled by the Oregon Province."
But attorneys who have filed multiple suits alleging sexual abuse by priests say that provincial officials have tried to shield the Jesuits' assets, whether they are owned by the province or not.
"The question is not whether (the Jesuit-affiliated properties) are part of the Oregon Province; the question is whether they have the legal responsibility or exposure for criminal activity done by the Oregon Province," said John Manly, a Newport Beach, Calif., lawyer for dozens of Alaska Natives who say they were abused.
Seattle lawyer Tim Kosnoff, whose clients include those who say they were abused by Jesuits in Washington, said that when the province's bankruptcy petition is scrutinized in court, anything is possible.
"Could Seattle U and all its real estate be in jeopardy? The answer is definitely yes," he said.
Seattle U and Gonzaga were each incorporated at least 110 years ago. Since Seattle U and the province are "legally and financially separate and independent entities," Sundborg said, the bankruptcy would not negatively affect the university's operations, finances or educational mission.
His presidential counterpart at Gonzaga, the Rev. Robert Spitzer, made the same point and added: "Gonzaga University's assets are its own and not subject to others' creditors."
Kosnoff said when the Catholic Diocese of Spokane filed for bankruptcy in 2004, the court found assets of the church that were not included in its filing. He and Manly say the Portland-based province may also be "playing games" to protect its assets.
"I'm not saying those assets could be reached. I would assume that they were insulated and organized separately," Kosnoff said.
But if the lines are blurred and the separation of properties in practice is "really just illusory, the court can treat them as assets of the debtor," he said.
Link (here)
No comments:
Post a Comment