The chairwoman's counsel produced the deed history. A charitable organization still owned the building. A separate, restricted trust held an interest designed to preserve educational use. The restaurant group contributed money and instructors but did not own the whole property. Yet the altered acquisition appendix listed the west block as available collateral for the hotel transaction.
'They can't pledge it,' counsel said. 'We do not control it.'
The chairwoman studied the description. 'Someone may be counting on the buyer not noticing the distinction.'
'Or someone has a second document claiming the foundation agreed.'
They arranged a meeting with the foundation's volunteer trustees, including an elderly retired teacher and the daughter of a former laundry worker. The trustees were startled to learn that the building appeared in a luxury transaction. No one had authorized its transfer. The foundation had received several unsolicited purchase offers, but every one had been rejected.
The retired teacher opened a filing cabinet and brought out a stack of correspondence. Three months earlier, an investment partnership had asked the foundation to consider selling the property as part of a neighborhood redevelopment scheme. The letter promised jobs, a boutique hotel, and a cultural dining destination. The trustee had answered that the building was not for sale. The investor replied with an offer almost twice the apparent market value. The foundation refused again.
'After that,' the teacher said, 'we began receiving inspection notices.'
The chairwoman frowned. 'From whom?'
'A private assessor said the site might contain old industrial contamination. Then somebody claimed our fire exits were inadequate. We corrected what actually needed correcting, but the letters kept coming.'
The foundation had handled legitimate inspections and asked the city to clarify which notices were official. Several demands proved to be private reports rather than binding orders. But the volume of correspondence frightened volunteers and donors. A small grant was delayed because the funder worried about the building's future.
The chairwoman looked at the records and recognized the name of the property investment partnership represented at the billionaire's dinner. The same company had offered to buy the building. The same company stood to receive broad security rights under the altered contract.
She did not announce a conspiracy. She asked the trustees to preserve the letters and let independent property counsel review them. If wrongdoing had occurred, a reliable record would matter more than angry speculation.