Audit finds 'intentional misuse' of funds by Elevate Ventures

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury Department says Elevate Ventures “intentionally misused” almost $500,000 in taxpayer funds when the state contractor invested in a company run by its board chairman.

The federal funds were invested through a state-managed program designed to spur small business development. Elevate Ventures contracts with the state to manage program's investment fund, the Indiana Angel Network Fund.

In an audit report released Wednesday, the federal office recommended the Treasury withhold $499,986 in funds to compensate for an investment Elevate Ventures made in Indianapolis-based marketing software developer Smarter Remarketer. Elevate’s chairman, Howard Bates, is CEO of Smarter Remarketer.

The investment "constituted a misuse in funds because [Bates] had controlling interest and voting stock ownership of more than 10 percent in the investee, which created a 'prohibited related party interest,'" the audit report said.

Investors concluded the misuse was intentional because Elevate CEO Stephen Hourigan, who certified the investment was compliant, had knowledge that Bates' "ownership interest could exceed the allowable share, and [he] did not disclose the information to Elevate’s Investment Committee, who unanimously approved the investment.”

Officials at Elevate did not immediately respond Thursday afternoon to a voicemail seeking comment.

The Inspector General’s audit contests an earlier review Indiana Gov. Mike Pence ordered after a investigative story by The Indianapolis Star in 2013.

The governor’s review, done by auditing firm KPMG, determined more oversight was needed, but otherwise determined Elevate was “substantially compliant” with requirements.

The inspector general also recommended the U.S. Treasury's State Small Business Credit Initiative determine whether Indiana's funding should be reduced, suspended or terminated and that the Indiana Economic Development Corp. review every investment decision by Elevate Ventures going forward.

Elevate Ventures board member Mike Davidson issued a statement Thursday saying he believes the Inspector General's characterization of the investment was inaccurate. He also said the investment has been fully recovered by the state with a 15 percent return on investment.

Asked if the state was taking any action against Elevate in light of the federal audit, Pence on Thursday said, "The matter is closed."

The Inspector General’s report absolves a second Elevate investment that was under scrutiny—$300,000 that went to MaxTradeIn, run by Bates’ son, Justin. The younger Bates is not an executive for Elevate, making the investment compliant. But the deal, while allowable, “may raise the appearance of partiality,” the audit stated.

The Treasury agreed with the Inspector General’s recommendation to withhold $499,986 in funding, though the Treasury disagreed that Elevate’s actions were “intentional,” the audit says.

The Treasury's State Small Business Credit Initiative awarded Indiana $34.3 million in May 2011. The state allocated $21 million of that money to the Venture Capital Program, which granted $9.5 million to the Angel Network Fund.

Elevate Ventures has approved 15 investments in all, totaling about $2.5 million.


  • Oversite by the State?
    How come the Feds figured this out and the State didn't? Where is the oversight from the state? It appears that the State of Indiana doesn't seem to care or want to watch its contractors. After the Indy Star reported about this company last year you would think the state would have investigated. It seems the fox is watching the hen house.
  • seems so intertwined and in a gray area
    Interesting, can be related to someone who gets funding from your influence through state funding, also, can give yourself funding the same way. How does a person get a position of authority over a fund and then positions investment in both his startup company and his sons startup company. Is there something wrong with this picture. I don't get it, but would think in future the state would run the process, not the person appointed to allocate the funds and place them in companies that are under both related parties.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).