Assurance of Discontinuance With Praying Pelicans Missions
Assurance of Discontinuance With Praying Pelicans Missions
Assurance of Discontinuance With Praying Pelicans Missions
The State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison, hereby petitions the
Court, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 8.31, subd. 2b, for an Order approving the attached,
KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General
State of Minnesota
/s/Carol R. Washington
CAROL R. WASHINGTON
Assistant Attorney General
Atty. Reg. No. 0390976
Minnesota Statutes section 8.31, subdivision 2b, between the State of Minnesota, through its
Attorney General, Keith Ellison (“State” or “AGO”) and Praying Pelican Missions (“PPM”);
WHEREAS, the AGO has authority to enforce Minnesota’s laws relating to charitable
organizations, charitable trusts, and nonprofit corporations under state statutes and common law,
including as parens patriae. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 8.31, 309.57, 317A.813, and 501B.34;
Statutes chapter 317A, and its registered office address is located at 8011 34th Avenue South,
Suite 33, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55425. PPM is exempt from federal income taxation pursuant
to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3). PPM first registered
with the AGO as a soliciting charitable organization pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section
309.52 on or around November 30, 2005, and is currently registered to solicit charitable
contributions in Minnesota;
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
WHEREAS, until March 21, 2019, when they resigned due to the AGO’s investigation,
PPM’s board members included Matthew Pfingsten, Kevin Meyer, Donald Schmidt, Timothy
WHEREAS, Matthew Pfingtsen was PPM’s Board Chair, President, and Chief Executive
Officer (“CEO”). Pfingsten was a PPM board member, officer, and employee during all time
WHEREAS, Timothy Schnoor was a PPM board member and Treasurer. Schnoor was a
PPM board member and officer during all time periods relevant to this Assurance prior to March
21, 2019;
WHEREAS, Jason Swartz was a PPM board member and its Vice President of Strategic
Relations. Swartz was a PPM board member and employee during all time periods relevant to
WHEREAS, Kevin Meyer was a PPM board member during all time periods relevant to
WHEREAS, Donald Schmidt was a PPM board member during all time periods relevant
NOW THEREFORE, the AGO and PPM hereby agree to entry of an Assurance of
ALLEGATIONS
formerly located in Duluth. Its charitable mission is to plan and lead international and domestic
2
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
3. In 2017, PPM raised more than $8.2 million in revenue. About $763,000
consisted of contributions solicited from the public, including about $37,000 from Minnesota
donors, and about $7.5 million consisted of program service revenue resulting from PPM
charging fees to mission trip participants and selling products from an online store.
4. From 2013 through 2018, PPM, through its Former Directors Matthew Pfingsten,
Kevin Meyer, Donald Schmidt, Timothy Schnoor, and Jason Swartz engaged in a series of
transactions for the benefit of a for-profit coffee shop named Pelican Coffee Inc. (“Pelican
Coffee”), which was solely owned by Pfingsten, PPM’s former Board Chair, President, and
CEO.
5. Such transactions were made for the benefit and under the direction of Pfingsten,
despite his material conflicts of interest. PPM’s other Former Directors—Meyer, Schmidt,
Schnoor, and Swartz—repeatedly failed to act independently of Pfingsten and in the best
6. These transactions were not only unlawful under the Minnesota Nonprofit
Corporation Act (“Nonprofit Act”), Minn. Stat. ch. 317A, and the Minnesota Supervision of
Trusts and Trustees Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 501B.33-.45 (“Charitable Trust Act”), but as discussed
Former Directors discussed in board meetings that Pelican Coffee’s presumed profits could be
3
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
used to fund PPM’s charitable activities. The venture was not in the usual and regular course of
PPM’s activities.
Pelican Coffee as a limited liability corporation, with PPM as the sole member/owner. This
structure would ensure that PPM would control Pelican Coffee’s operations and receive its
profits. Contrary to this advice, Former Directors voted that PPM would own a 49% minority
share of the coffee shop, and Pfingsten would be the majority owner at 51%. When deposed by
the AGO, PPM’s Former Directors testified that they wanted Pfingsten to have a more
significant ownership stake in Pelican Coffee so he would have more control over it without
9. Former Directors also voted that both PPM and Pfingsten were to initially invest
substantial sums in the proposed joint venture. PPM and another Pfingsten-owned business
named Mango Creek Travel initially invested in Pelican Coffee, but Pfingsten made no personal
10. Former Directors never memorialized the terms of its proposed joint venture with
obligations, repayment terms, or consequences if one party did not live up to their agreed-upon
11. Former Directors further pledged PPM’s assets as security for a loan received
from the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to capitalize Pelican Coffee, without any
analysis that such a guarantee could be reasonably be expected, in the judgment of Former
4
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
12. Despite his material financial interest in the transaction, Former Directors allowed
Pfingsten to lead, participate in, and vote on most, if not all, material decisions related to the
transfer of money and other PPM assets from PPM to Pelican Coffee.
13. Contrary to both professional advice and PPM’s vote, Pfingsten incorporated
Pelican Coffee as a for-profit corporation, and designated himself as the sole shareholder.
Pfingsten never gave PPM any ownership interest in Pelican Coffee. Pfingsten testified that he
14. Neither PPM, nor any individual Former Director other than Pfingsten, served as
a Pelican Coffee board member or officer. PPM never received any kind of ownership interest
in, legal control over, or benefit from Pelican Coffee. Indeed, Pfingsten, who was a former
consumer lending analyst at Wells Fargo, represented on Pelican Coffee’s SBA loan application,
under threat of criminal penalty, that PPM would “not guide the for-profit coffee shop” in any
way.
15. Despite having no ownership interest in or legal control over Pelican Coffee, PPM
expended at least $771,624 between 2014 and 2018 to capitalize Pelican Coffee, fund its ongoing
operations, and pay off its creditors. Some PPM employees also worked at Pelican Coffee, and
PPM subsidized these employees’ wages for work performed on behalf of Pelican Coffee, which
is not reflected in this figure. Former Directors further expended significant time and effort
16. Pelican Coffee was not profitable, so Former Directors approved an additional,
unsecured “line of credit” in 2016, allowing it to obtain tens of thousands of dollars a month
from PPM. Former Directors allowed Pfingsten and Pelican Coffee staff to obtain these funds
5
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
directly from PPM’s finance department without PPM board or management pre-approval or
17. These actions and inactions violated, among other statutes, Minn. Stat. §§
317A.251, subd. 1 (breach of director fiduciary duties), 317A.361 (breach of officer fiduciary
duties), 317A.255, subd. 1 (director conflicts of interest), 317A.501 (limits on loans to and
guarantees of obligations of directors), and 501B.41 (breach of trust), and provide grounds for
18. In August 2016, PPM’s Finance and Operations Director (“Finance Director”)
sent Former Directors detailed correspondence alerting them that the Pelican Coffee
19. The Finance Director specifically alerted Former Directors that PPM did not own
Pelican Coffee, Pelican Coffee was not fulfilling its obligation to pay PPM back, and PPM
should not be expending money and devoting PPM staff time to further the interests of a for-
20. Former Directors purported to conduct an investigation into this report, which
consisted only of speaking to Pfingsten and lower-level employees with no role in PPM’s
finances or governance. Former Directors did not interview the Finance Director or other
finance staff as part of its investigation, or share his complaint with PPM’s CPA, auditor, or
lawyers.
21. Other than purportedly reviewing PPM’s regularly scheduled annual audit, which
Pfingsten presented to the board, Former Directors took no steps to investigate the claims
6
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
concerning misuse of PPM’s charitable assets. Rather, Former Directors, under the direction of
applicable to all PPM “employees, volunteers, and Board of Directors,” and which states: “No
employee will be disciplined or otherwise penalized for raising a concern in good faith.”
23. These actions and inactions violated, among other statutes, Minn. Stat. §§
317A.251, subd. 1 (breach of director fiduciary duties), 317A.361 (breach of officer fiduciary
duties), and 501B.41 (breach of trust), and provide grounds for equitable relief under Minn. Stat.
§ 317A.751, subd. 5.
24. The AGO initiated an investigation into PPM in late 2016. In April 2017, Former
Directors discussed in a board meeting how Pfingsten was still the sole owner of Pelican Coffee.
Former Directors instructed Pfingsten to transfer ownership of Pelican Coffee to PPM. Pfingsten
never transferred ownership of Pelican Coffee to PPM, however, and Former Directors never
25. Rather, while the AGO’s investigation was still ongoing, Pfingsten convinced the
other Former Directors to “cut their losses” and sell Pelican Coffee. Such a sale prior to the
transfer of ownership limited PPM’s ability to recoup its Pelican Coffee-related expenditures or
26. Despite PPM never having received an ownership interest in Pelican Coffee,
Former Directors purported to agree to allow Pfingsten to sell Pelican Coffee’s assets to “any
7
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
27. Despite his material financial interest in the transaction, Former Directors allowed
Pfingsten to lead, participate in, and vote on all PPM decisions related to the transfer of assets
28. Prior to the sale, Former Directors obtained an informal assessment from its
independent auditor valuing Pelican Coffee’s assets at hundreds of thousands of dollars. With
Former Directors’ knowledge and approval, and with assistance of counsel, Pfingsten sold
Pelican Coffee’s assets to a buyer for $16,000. Pfingsten testified that he had a desire to quickly
29. Pfingsten used the entire proceeds of the sale to pay Pelican Coffee creditors other
30. Despite their knowledge of the AGO’s ongoing investigation into PPM’s prior
dealings and monetary support of Pelican Coffee, Former Directors did not notify the AGO of
Pfingsten’s intent to sell Pelican Coffee’s assets. The AGO only learned of the sale after the fact
when PPM filed its annual report with the AGO in November 2017.
31. These actions and inactions violated, among other statutes, Minn. Stat. §§
317A.251, subd. 1 (breach of director fiduciary duties), 317A.361 (breach of officer fiduciary
duties), 317A.255, subd. 1 (director conflicts of interest), and 501B.41 (breach of trust), and
provide grounds for equitable relief under Minn. Stat. § 317A.751, subd. 5.
32. In the fall of 2017, PPM filed its 2016 audit with the AGO. The audit stated that
PPM management had determined that Pfingsten-owned Pelican Coffee’s obligation to PPM was
“entirely uncollectable.” The audit further stated that, as a result, PPM had discharged the entire
8
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
33. PPM’s auditor identified Pfingsten and PPM’s finance staff as providing
information for the audit. Former Directors allowed Pfingsten to lead, participate in, and vote on
all PPM decisions and communications with its auditor related to the purported discharge of
34. Former Directors had conducted no analysis on whether PPM should attempt to
collect the obligation from Pelican Coffee or Pfingsten, as its sole owner, or whether the
35. Despite their knowledge of the AGO’s investigation into PPM’s dealings with
Pelican Coffee, Former Directors did not notify the AGO of PPM’s intent to discharge Pelican
Coffee’s or Pfingsten’s obligations to PPM. The AGO only learned of this occurrence after the
fact when PPM filed its annual report with the AGO in November 2017.
36. After learning of the sale of Pelican Coffee assets and discharge of its obligations
to PPM, the AGO deposed each Director in the spring of 2018. Multiple Former Directors
testified that, despite PPM’s audit stating otherwise, they had not made a final decision on
whether or not to discharge Pelican Coffee’s or Pfingsten’s obligations to PPM, and were still
37. In November 2018, however, PPM filed its audited financial statements with the
AGO for 2017. In a note concerning related-party transactions, PPM’s audit stated that PPM
38. Despite the AGO’s ongoing investigation, Former Directors did not notify the
AGO of PPM’s intent to discharge Pelican Coffee’s obligations to PPM, thereby terminating a
potential avenue for PPM to recover the money expended on Pelican Coffee.
9
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
39. PPM’s auditor also disclosed that PPM gave an “additional $93,372” to Pelican
Coffee during 2018 “in order to payoff [Pelican Coffee’s] outstanding debts.” Yet again, PPM
made these additional transfers to Pelican Coffee during the AGO’s investigation of its previous
Pelican Coffee transactions, without notifying the AGO. In total, PPM transferred nearly
40. These actions and inactions violated, among other statutes, Minn. Stat. §§
317A.251, subd. 1 (breach of director fiduciary duties), 317A.361 (breach of officer fiduciary
assistance to directors), and 501B.41 (breach of trust), and provide grounds for equitable relief
41. PPM also filed documents with the AGO containing misrepresentations that
42. In its Form 990 for the year 2014 filed with the AGO on or around December 30,
2015, PPM checked “no” to the question of whether PPM was “a party to a business transaction
with . . . [a]n entity of which a current or former officer, director, or key employee . . . was an
43. This was false. As described above, PPM transferred significant sums of money
to Pelican Coffee, including approximately $50,000 in 2014. Pelican Coffee’s sole shareholder
was and always had been Pfingsten, a PPM officer and director.
describe these Pelican Coffee transactions, which would have allowed the AGO and other
10
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
45. These actions violated Minn. Stat. § 309.53 (requirements for documents
III. PPM FALSELY TOLD THE AGO THAT IT TRANSFERRED NO MONEY TO MANGO CREEK
TRAVEL, ANOTHER PFINGSTEN-OWNED BUSINESS.
46. Pfingsten also solely owned a travel agency called Mango Creek Travel (“Mango
Creek”), a for-profit corporation. PPM referred all of its mission trip participants to Mango
Creek to book their travel arrangements. These referrals to Mango Creek from PPM made up
47. Neither PPM, nor any of its individual former board members other than
Pfingsten, served as a Mango Creek board member or officer. PPM never had any kind of
ownership interest in, legal control over, obligation to, or liability for, Mango Creek.
48. As part of its investigation, the AGO served PPM interrogatories in a Civil
interrogatory requiring PPM to identify the amount of money it provided to Mango Creek, PPM
49. The AGO also examined Pfingsten under oath on March 16, 2018. The AGO
asked Pfingsten if PPM had ever given money to Mango Creek, as follows:
50. The AGO also specifically asked Pfingsten about PPM’s Interrogatory answer on
11
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
51. In the deposition, the AGO produced checks that PPM had written to Mango
Creek in 2017 totaling approximately $136,000. Pfingsten testified that such payments served
to reimburse Mango Creek for credit card expenditures that Mango Creek had incurred on PPM’s
behalf. Pfingsten further testified that he did not disclose such transfers in PPM’s interrogatory
answers because they only served to repay Mango Creek for a supposed past obligation incurred
on behalf of PPM, and conferred no financial benefit on Mango Creek other than the repayment
PPM filed its audited financial statements for 2017. The audit disclosed that “Praying Pelican
Missions advanced $136,497 to Mango Creek Travel, Inc. (a related party for profit
organization) during the year ending December 31, 2017.” Directly contrary to Pfingsten’s
testimony, PPM’s independent auditor characterized the transfer as a “note receivable” owed to
PPM—not an obligation PPM owed to Mango Creek—and stated that Mango Creek’s obligation
53. Such transfers were not in the best interest of PPM. They also occurred prior to
Pfingsten’s March 6, 2018, testimony, and were known to Pfingsten at the time as the sole owner
of Mango Creek and as the Board Chair, President, and CEO of PPM.
54. The audit further stated that PPM had transferred additional sums to Mango Creek
during 2018 without the AGO’s knowledge. Once again, despite the AGO’s ongoing
investigation, Former Directors did not notify the AGO of PPM’s intent to transfer such funds to
12
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
55. These actions and inactions violated, among other statutes, Minn. Stat. §§
317A.251, subd. 1 (breach of director fiduciary duties), 317A.361 (breach of officer fiduciary
assistance to directors), and 501B.41 (breach of trust), and provide grounds for equitable relief
IV. THE ABOVE UNLAWFUL CONDUCT IS EVIDENCE OF, AND WAS CAUSED BY,
VIOLATIONS OF NONPROFIT ACT PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO ENSURE PROPER
GOVERNANCE.
56. Many of the above-referenced violations were the result of, and evidence of,
Former Directors’ overall failure to act in the best interests of PPM and their relinquishment of
57. Additional evidence of Former Directors’ governance failures under the Nonprofit
58. Former Directors were not aware of the basic obligations of nonprofit directors.
Some Former Directors testified that they were not aware of the fiduciary duties owed by
nonprofit directors, or other requirements for nonprofit directors under Minnesota law, including
59. Former Directors failed to familiarize themselves with PPM’s internal policies,
procedures, or bylaws. Multiple Former Directors were not even aware of the existence of such
documents. Former Directors failed, in turn, to abide by the standards set forth in these
documents.
60. Former Directors failed to familiarize themselves with PPM’s key financial
documents, including its annual Internal Revenue Service filings, its audited financial statements,
13
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
and its filings with the AGO. Multiple Former Directors were not even aware of the existence of
such documents.
61. Former Directors completely ceded their authority over PPM to Pfingsten.
Multiple Former Directors testified that they believed that their role was to personally support
Pfingsten, rather than to serve as an overseer of Pfingsten and his actions on behalf of PPM. All
Former Directors testified that they had never voted against a proposal raised by Pfingsten. On
multiple occasions where Pfingsten acted in contravention to a board vote, Former Directors
62. The above allegations constitute violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 317A.201 (board
direction and control over nonprofit), 317A.251, subd. 1 (breach of director fiduciary duties),
317A.361 (breach of officer fiduciary duties), and 501B.41 (breach of trust), and provide
63. Despite their potential liability to PPM for the above violations, Former Directors
continued to serve on PPM’s board until March 21, 2019, when they resigned as a result of the
AGO’s investigation. Until March 21, 2019, Pfingsten continued to serve as PPM’s Board
Chair, President, and CEO. Each Former Director had a personal interest in avoiding liability to
PPM that was a direct conflict of interest with PPM’s interest in recovering the significant
64. As such, the AGO recommended that PPM voluntarily appoint a leadership
with the AGO and ensure PPM’s interests were adequately represented. On or around March 21,
2019, PPM, with the assistance of counsel, removed Former Directors and appointed new board
14
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
members March 21, 2019 (“Current Directors”), which PPM has represented to the AGO are
65. Former Directors’ and PPM’s repeated, flagrant violations of Minnesota Statutes
chapter 317A and 501B, continuing misconduct during the course of the AGO’s investigation,
and material self-interests adverse to PPM, made it critical to appoint replacements for Former
66. PPM neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in this Assurance.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
67. PPM represents and warrants that Current Directors have been since their
election, presently are, and will continue to be independent of, and free from undue influence by,
any Former Director. The AGO’s agreement to the terms of this Assurance, including the below
injunctive relief, is expressly contingent on the completeness and accuracy of this representation
and warranty by PPM. If this representation and warranty by PPM are materially inaccurate or
68. Within 14 days of the Court’s approval of this Assurance, Current Directors shall:
(b) Notify all PPM employees, contractors, and other agents of the termination of
Pfingsten and Swartz’s employment.
69. The employee officer position(s) previously occupied by Pfingsten shall remain
vacant until a suitable replacement Executive Director is found by the Current Directors pursuant
to Paragraph 72. A manager shall oversee and ensure the day-to-day continuity of the program
15
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
aspects of PPM’s operations until such successor Executive Director is hired. Such manager
70. PPM shall not, whether directly, indirectly, or in combination with or through any
(a) Allow any Former Director to serve or act as a director, officer, employee,
independent contractor, consultant, or other representative of PPM, or to
otherwise have any control over managing, overseeing, or administering the
finances, operations, or other affairs of PPM;
(b) Pay any compensation or otherwise confer any financial benefit on any Former
Director, other than paying employees Schwartz and Pfingsten their pro-rated
salaries and other compensation as set forth in their employment agreements
earned through their last days of employment
(c) Transfer any PPM money or assets to, guarantee or pledge PPM assets as security
for an obligation of, become a surety for, or otherwise financially assist any
Former Director;
(d) Allow any Former Director to have access to or otherwise exercise any control
over any PPM assets, including any PPM bank or other financial account; or
(e) Allow any person associated with any Former Director to engage in any of the
conduct prohibited by this paragraph.
71. The term “officer” shall have the meaning given this term by Minn. Stat. §
317A.011, subd. 15, and the term “director” shall have the meaning given this term by Minn.
Stat. § 317.011, subd. 7. The term “associated with” shall mean the persons and entities
referenced in Minn. Stat. § 317A.255, as well as any other person who is connected with the
72. In addition to all other duties, powers, responsibilities, and obligations set forth
under the Nonprofit Act and Charitable Trust Act, PPM’s Board of Directors shall:
(a) Search for and hire a qualified and appropriate Executive Director;
16
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
(b) Ensure that PPM is represented by legal counsel with nonprofit governance
expertise, and certified public accountants with nonprofit accounting expertise,
and who are independent of Former Directors and the allegations set forth in this
Assurance, to assist with PPM’s rights, claims, and obligations arising out of the
allegations set forth in this Assurance;
(c) Conduct an audit to determine the extent of assets misused for purposes other than
the fulfilment of PPM’s charitable mission;
(d) Determine all PPM claims and remedies that may exist arising out of the
allegations set forth in this Assurance; determine whether, within its reasonable
judgment, it is in the best interest of PPM to pursue any such claims and remedies
against Former Directors, any other PPM agents, contractors, insurance
companies, or any other parties; and pursue such claims and remedies
accordingly;
(e) Conduct a review of PPM’s bylaws, policies, and procedures, including but not
limited to internal control, whistleblower, and conflict of interest policies, and
create and revise such policies as it determines, within its reasonable judgment, is
necessary to address deficiencies and protect PPM’s assets and other interests;
(f) Review and analyze PPM’s submissions to the AGO pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes section 309.53, and determine whether, within its reasonable judgment, it
is necessary to file amended statements with the AGO, the Internal Revenue
Service, or other regulatory agencies, and file such amended documents
accordingly;
(g) Determine whether, within its reasonable judgment, it is in the best interest of
PPM to report the conduct set forth in this Assurance to state, federal, or local
civil or criminal regulatory or law enforcement authorities, and make such reports
accordingly;
(h) Upon written request by the AGO, apprise the AGO of the results of the audit
required by this paragraph and the Current Director’s intentions, plans, and
progress in pursuing any legal claims or other remedies arising out of the
allegations set forth in this Assurance;
(i) Secure new D&O insurance and put target activities and goals in place to lower
PPM’s risk profile with insurance providers;
(j) Develop appropriate business practices and ensure the Board is engaging with
each departmental discipline;
(m) Establish a risk control matrix identifying gaps and controls to mitigate risk.
17
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
73. At all times, PPM, Current Directors, and all PPM directors and officers thereafter
shall:
(b) Maintain and strictly comply with appropriate bylaws, policies, and procedures,
and with Minnesota and federal law, including but not limited to fiduciary duties
and conflict-of-interest requirements;
(c) Regularly schedule and attend board meetings, have sufficient and appropriate
knowledge of and familiarity with the operations and affairs of PPM, and act
consistently with the fiduciary duties and other standards of conduct imposed on
directors and officers of nonprofit organizations as set forth in applicable law,
including the Minnesota Nonprofit Corporation Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 317A, the
Minnesota Supervision of Charitable Trusts and Trustees Act, Minn. Stat. §§
501B.31-.45, and common law;
(d) Take reasonable steps to ensure that none of PPM’s monies or other assets are
expended or otherwise used for an improper purpose, including a purpose in
violation of section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, Minnesota Statutes
sections 501B.31-.45, or other applicable law;
(e) Ensure all directors and officers obtain sufficient training to apprise them of their
duties under Minnesota law;
(f) Fully, completely, truthfully, and promptly cooperate with the AGO relating to
any AGO investigation, lawsuit, or future proceeding against any Former Director
or any other parties relating to, or arising out of, the allegations set forth in this
Assurance; and
(g) Upon the written request of the AGO, promptly provide accurate, true, and
complete information, documents, and data that the AGO, in its sole discretion,
deems reasonably necessary to verify compliance with this Assurance.
GENERAL TERMS
74. PPM understands that, after the date of the approval of this Assurance by the
Court, a violation of this Assurance may subject it to sanctions for contempt pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes section 8.31, and the AGO may thereafter, in its sole discretion, initiate legal
proceedings against PPM for any and all violations of this Assurance.
the AGO, upon approval of this Assurance by the Court, hereby fully and completely releases
18
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
PPM from any and all claims of the AGO under Minn. Stat. §§ 309.53, 317A.251, subd. 1,
317A.361, 317A.255, subd. 1, 317A.501, and 501B.41, arising out of the allegations contained in
this Assurance, up to and including the date of this Assurance. The AGO through this Assurance
does not settle, release, or resolve any claim against any Former Director or any other individual,
entity, or person other than PPM. The AGO through this Assurance does not settle, release, or
resolve any claim involving any private causes of action, claims, and remedies—including but
not limited to any PPM claims against any Former Director—or private causes of action, claims,
or remedies provided for under Minnesota Statutes section 8.31. PPM through this Assurance
does not settle, release, or resolve any claim against any person or entity, including against any
Former Director. This release does not apply in any way to claims of any other State of
Minnesota agency, department, official, or division, including but not limited to the Minnesota
Department of Revenue.
76. The claims, remedies, and relief provided for in this Assurance are in addition to
all other claims, remedies, and relief available to the State of Minnesota or the AGO.
77. PPM shall not state or imply, directly or indirectly, that the State of Minnesota or
the AGO has approved of, condones, or agrees with any conduct, actions, or inactions by PPM.
78. Nothing in this Assurance shall relieve PPM of its obligations to comply with all
applicable Minnesota and federal laws and regulations, and court or administrative orders and
directives.
intelligently, and voluntarily waives its First Amendment rights to the extent, if at all, such rights
19
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
80. If this Assurance is violated, PPM agrees that any statute of limitations, statute of
repose, or other time-related defense applicable to the subject matters of the allegations
contained in this Assurance, and any claims arising out of or relating thereto, are retroactively
81. The person signing this Assurance for PPM warrants that PPM has authorized the
person to execute this Assurance, that he or she executes this Assurance in an official capacity
that binds PPM and its successors, and that PPM has been fully advised by its counsel or has
original, and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Assurance may be
83. This Assurance constitutes the full and complete terms of the agreement entered
shall be served on the following persons, or any person subsequently designated by the parties to
receive such notices, by mail and email at the addresses identified below:
As to the AGO:
Carol R. Washington, Assistant Attorney General
Minnesota Attorney General’s Office
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
[email protected]
As to PPM:
Board of Directors and President
Praying Pelican Missions
8011 34th Ave South, Suite 333
Minneapolis, MN 55425
20
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
Aaron Hall
3572 117th Ln NE
Minneapolis, MN 55449
[email protected]
85. The failure of a party to exercise any rights under this Assurance shall not be
87. Nothing in this Assurance shall be construed to limit the jurisdiction, power, or
authority of the State of Minnesota or the AGO, except as expressly set forth herein with regard
to PPM.
88. Each of the parties participated in the drafting of this Assurance and agree that the
Assurance’s terms may not be construed against or in favor of any of the parties by virtue of
draftsmanship.
89. Each party shall perform such further acts and execute and deliver such further
90. Each signatory shall perform such further acts and execute and deliver such
further documents as may reasonably be necessary to carry out this Assurance, including that
PPM shall promptly comply with any reasonable request from the AGO for information
regarding verification of their compliance with this Assurance. The AGO shall have all powers
specified by Minn. Stat. §§ 8.31, 309.553, 309.57, 317A.813, 501B.40, 501B.41, and all other
authority otherwise available for purposes of investigating and remedying violations of this
Assurance.
91. The AGO may file this Assurance with the Court without further notice to PPM,
and the Court may approve of and enter this Assurance ex parte and without further proceedings.
21
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
62-CV-19-6438
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/9/2019 9:15 AM
ORDER
incorporated herein by reference, and which the Court finds reasonable and appropriate, it is SO
ORDERED.
Date:________________________ ______________________________
Judge of District Court
23