May 11 (Reuters) - The National Rifle Association cannot use bankruptcy to reorganize in gun-friendly Texas, a federal judge in Dallas ruled on Tuesday, handing a defeat to the influential firearms rights group that is facing an effort to dissolve it in New York state.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Harlin Hale's decision, following a trial over the legitimacy of the NRA's January bankruptcy filing, means the group will remain incorporated in New York.
Letitia James, New York's attorney general, had last August filed a lawsuit seeking the dissolution of the NRA, which she accused of corruption and misspending.
"The question the court is faced with is whether the existential threat facing the NRA is the type of threat that the Bankruptcy Code is meant to protect against," Hale wrote. "The court believes it is not."
The NRA, a group closely aligned with U.S. Republican politicians including former President Donald Trump, has been instrumental for years in thwarting Democratic-backed gun control proposals in the U.S. Congress.
James, a Democrat, has accused the NRA of diverting millions of dollars to fund luxuries for officials including longtime Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre. She also accused it of awarding lucrative contracts to close associates and family members of senior officials.
LaPierre and the NRA have denied wrongdoing. (Reporting by Maria Chutchian; Editing by Will Dunham, Noeleen Walder and Leslie Adler)
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
lemming-leader12 on May 11st, 2021 at 20:52 UTC »
Apparently they have plenty of cash and are far from being functionally bankrupt, but they were attempting to use bankruptcy in Texas as a tactic to avoid having cash confiscated or fined from them during their current legal challenges.
its_yer_dad on May 11st, 2021 at 20:18 UTC »
the NRA has been a self-serving operation for too many years. When Ollie North leaves because you're too corrupt, you got issues.
ScotTheDuck on May 11st, 2021 at 20:06 UTC »
LaPierre put the NRA through bankruptcy apparently without the board's approval or even knowledge. Which seems like, from a corporate governance perspective, a big fucking deal. I can't imagine that, in a rational organization, any CEO that committed an action that big and that would affect that many shareholders would be allowed to stay on for more than a minute after that bankruptcy filing was submitted.