Nonprofit Mergers and Acquisitions

The Muhlenberg Independents

New Jersey hospital closings have exposed a mergers and acquisitions strategy, popularized by rogue nonprofits, who remove social services and endowments accumulated over decades, while robbing all levels of government of tax revenue, as they enrich themselves personally. Muhlenberg was started 131 years ago after a train accident, beginning a tradition of bequests and endowments long before government was expected to provide for charity care. Residents upheld a long tradition of leaving bequests and endowments they expected to compensate for charity care. The Muhlenberg Independents are researchers that believe the salvation of Muhlenberg lies in the protection of those assets that include an astonishing amount of real estate outside of Plainfield. Muhlenberg exposes a fatal flaw in the protection given to endowments, after the benefactor’s death. Wall Street tactics of mergers and acquisitions have spread and redefined the practices of a new generation of profiteers. Utilizing the barely scrutinized and rarely regulated structures of nonprofit corporations, the plundering of old richly endowed facilities, like Muhlenberg Hospital, is turning into a tragic loss of history and multiple generations of philanthropy. We must honor the sacrifice of people who made provisions to care for the poor and disenfranchised or return those assets to the appropriate heirs. The Muhlenberg Independents are in possession of a small mountain of financial documents that prove the violation of donor intent and the failure of the State of New Jersey to protect the substantial donated assets of old hospitals that the state is closing. Muhlenberg remains an asset even in its current state. It does not matter if the hospital has been gutted and the cost of keeping such an old building functional are high. The only thing that cannot be replaced is the land. The community deserves a fair price and an uncompromised sale with Solaris relinquishing all control over the assets of Muhlenberg. Solaris was voted control of Muhlenberg’s substantial assets without payment or promises to continue to serve the community. Is their refusal to participate in a good faith effort to find a buyer indicative of their alternative agenda or the legal lack of standing to sell a facility that they control, but do not own? Did Solaris even have the legal standing to apply for a certificate of need to close Muhlenberg?