It does not rank particularly highly in terms of its net assets under management ($215 million at the end of 2024), or the length of time it has operated. But for approximately the last three years, the Newman’s Own Foundation has definitely ranked among the US’ most talked-about tax-exempt foundations.
Founded in 2005, NOF’s function is to oversee the operations of the food business that movie star Paul Newman created through his “Newman’s Own” brand of sauces, drinks, salad dressings, etc. – and to, in line with Newman’s vision, distribute 100% of the profits flowing from that brand in support of children’s charities. NOF owns the Newman Own’s brand and associated food business.
Since its founding in 1982, the “Newman’s Own” food brand has generated more than $600 million worth of contributions to organizations serving children or supporting other causes. It will forever be to Paul Newman’s credit as a humanitarian that this Hollywood icon, rather than monetize his world-famous image solely for his own private financial benefit, would instead harness the value of that unique asset to generate more than a half-billion dollars in philanthropic activity.
As impressive as this figure is, these days, NOF is better known in many circles for something other than its charitable efforts. The foundation is at the center of a complicated dispute over its alleged organizational drift in recent years. The disagreement pits several of Paul Newman’s daughters on one side, and the foundation’s board and management on the other.
This dispute emerged into public consciousness first in 2015, when Vanity Fair published a long article exploring whether NOF was operating truly 100% in alignment with its founder’s vision.
After quietly simmering for several years, in 2022, the feud escalated. In August of that year, two of Newman’s daughters (Elinor T. “Nell” Newman and the late Susan Kendall Newman – Paul Newman being father to five daughters through his two marriages) initiated a lawsuit against NOF in Connecticut.
That lawsuit was later refiled in November 2022, with a third plaintiff named Cynthia Rowland added. Rowland is a veteran San Francisco-based business lawyer with deep expertise in the philanthropic sector, appointed by Newman’s daughters as sole trustee of a trust set up by Paul Newman to oversee ongoing matters related to his estate. This included the protection of his image and related intellectual property, which he had gifted to NOF for use on the packaging of its food products.
This lawsuit ended quietly in March 2025, with both sides agreeing to an as-of-yet undisclosed settlement. The court filings in the case are now part of the public record, and these include documentation of how Paul Newman and several close advisors together laid the basis for NOF in the years leading up to his 2008 passing – all likely to be of enduring interest to those observers who are watching developments in the case from a “donor’s intent” perspective.
“Mismanagement” and “questionable practices”
***
[The] complaint alleged [that] NOF had entered into an agreement to sell a gimmicky-looking “Newman’s Own” cleaning brush …
***
In their November 2022 complaint, the Newman sisters and Cynthia Rowland contend the following:
Over the years, however, Newman’s Own Foundation lost its way and strayed from its mission to preserve and honor Paul Newman’s legacy. The years since Mr. Newman’s death consist of a long and consistent pattern of disregard, by those in control, of Mr. Newman’s specific intentions and direction, coupled with mismanagement, scandal, and questionable practices.
The claims of “mismanagement, scandal and questionable practices” run for several paragraphs, and include:
- The departure in 2019 of former NOF CEO Robert Forrester (who had previously been a long-term legal and business advisor to Paul Newman), after a pattern of sexual harassment was alleged. Filings in the 2022 case noted that Forrester was allowed to continue on as a board director for some time after leaving the CEO job, and that a study of the allegations paid for by the board was never made public;
- Allegations that, as CEO, Forrester had further demonstrated a pattern of pressuring charities applying for NOF grants to purchase advisory services from a business he controlled – which the complaint notes, “if true, would appear to be a clear conflict of interest;” and
- Allegations that, as CEO, Forrester had “also consistently travelled First Class, often accompanied by his wife, staying in expensive hotels and having their trips fully funded by NOF.” The complaint further alleged that “Forrester also employed a personal driver, paid for by NOF.”
The lawsuit reiterated the Newman sisters’ previous claims that, contrary to their understanding of their father’s plans to keep them involved with NOF, including in terms of directing a portion of its grant money, they were squeezed out of any substantive role or connection with the foundation soon after his passing. (These allegations, in which Bob Forrester and other advisors figure prominently, had been key to the 2015 Vanity Fair piece mentioned above, and formed a substantial part of the 2022 litigation.)
Also at issue in the Connecticut courtroom was the plaintiffs’ claim that NOF was deliberately ignoring Newman’s expressed wish that the foundation ensure his likeness only be used to promote high-quality food products. Instead, the complaint alleged, NOF had entered into an agreement to sell a gimmicky-looking “Newman’s Own” cleaning brush with Newman’s picture on the packaging.
As a remedy, the lawsuit’s demands included financial damages (which the plaintiffs planned to donate), an injunction against non-food-related use of Paul Newman’s likeness, and a request for the judge to direct NOF to more rigorously and scrupulously incorporate the expressed input of Newman’s daughters in a very specific aspect of its annual grant-making, per the terms of Paul Newman’s will.
Round One to the plaintiffs
***
The impression one gets from Judge Ozalis’ decision is that NOF did not defend itself as zealously as it could have against the Newman/Rowland lawsuit . . .
***
On June 28, 2024, following nearly two years of courtroom maneuvers, the Hon. Sheila Ozalis announced her decision regarding the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction on NOF’s use of Paul Newman’s likeness to promote non-food products.
In her 24 page memo, Ozalis granted a temporary injunction forbidding further use of Paul Newman’s likeness on non-food products. She made several very pointed references to how NOF had structured its defense in the case, noting with some apparent surprise that two individuals very familiar with the matters under discussion – Bob Forrester and Brian Murphy (Murphy being another former advisor to Paul Newman who remains on NOF’s board) – never appeared in court.
Forrester’s non-appearance is understandable, as testifying on behalf of NOF would have left him vulnerable to a grueling and relentless cross-examination by the plaintiffs, including about his allegedly self-interested actions during his nearly 11 years as leader of the foundation.
Both men “could have easily testified as to Paul Newman’s intent with respect to the licencing of his name, likeness and image on non-food products,” Judge Ozalis wrote. She noted that Forrester simply never appeared, and that she was informed that Murphy was on a skiing holiday on the West Coast and completely unavailable.
The impression one gets from Judge Ozalis’ decision is that NOF did not defend itself as zealously as it could have against the Newman/Rowland lawsuit, notably by not calling Forrester and Murphy to testify.
However, this does not mean that NOF simply closed its eyes in responding to the lawsuit; in fact, its most important actions in response may have been taken outside the courtroom.
As the Connecticut lawsuit was being re-filed in November 2022, the then-CEO of NOF, Dr. Miriam Nelson, publicized her decision—made earlier that year—to retire at year’s end. NOF’s board of directors was at that time several months into a search for a new CEO. Nelson had led NOF since Brian Forrester’s departure from the CEO role in 2019.
Then, on March 1, 2023, NOF announced a new CEO named Alex Amouyel as successor to Nelson.
Born in France, Amouyel is a veteran of the international philanthropic sector; she is for example an alumnus of the Clinton Global Initiative. Prior to working at NOF, she was executive director with a unit of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology focused on incubating and helping launch start-up companies attempting to mitigate global problems.
As NOF CEO, Amouyel quickly embarked on a high-profile media outreach campaign. She presents herself as a new, more youthful public face of the organization. This has included paying effusive public tribute to the man who created NOF.
In addition to the interviews she completed after her appointment was announced, she also delivered a “TED” talk in September 2024, proclaiming Paul Newman to be a visionary thinker who identified a way, through NOF, to use “capitalism’s mighty power in service of justice.” She supported the drive to have a formal declaration made by the town of Westport, CT to proclaim “Paul Newman Generosity Day” on January 26, 2025, to mark the actor’s 100th birthday. (Westport is where he made his home for many years.)
In November 2025, Amouyel praised Newman further through an article in Fast Company. She called his decision to marry his food company with a foundation for continuity purposes to be the “ultimate legacy power move.”
As a way to enshrine the creativity Newman displayed in creating a food company that donates 100% of its profits after expenses to charity, Amouyel has steadily publicized what is known as the “100% for Purpose Club“– an association of enterprises similar to Newman’s Own. Other members of the club include Patagonia, the popular international outdoor clothing manufacturer, and Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which oversees the ongoing publication of the beloved children’s author’s various works.
It is noteworthy that Amouyel does not appear to have been asked about, or directly addressed, the Newman sisters’ litigation in the course of her interviews and profile articles.
It’s easy to reach the conclusion that Amouyel’s habit of paying effusive impromptu tributes to Paul Newman whenever she speaks has been intended to help symbolically bridge the public rift that had opened up between the Newman sisters and NOF.
Enduring patterns of philanthropy
***
The NOF board and management may have made a huge mistake in not pursuing an earlier settlement of the Newman sisters’ concerns outside the legal system.
***
As described earlier, Newman’s Own was set up to be a conventional charity, one that provided civil society benefits that served children and funded other humanitarian causes. But that’s not to say that it avoided controversial policy advocacy. Examining NOF’s tax filings back to 2013 reveals some unexpected and interesting continuities in contributions for the years surveyed (albeit with very little substantive explanation about the purpose of the donations).
These are:
- Cumulative contributions of more than $400,000 to the New Venture Fund, a “fiscal sponsorship” of the notorious Arabella Advisors’ left-leaning funding empire;
- Cumulative contributions of almost $700,000 to the Tides Center, also well known as a lefty fiscal sponsor;
- Cumulative contributions of just over $16 million to Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (RPA), which advertises itself as “a fiscal sponsor for more than 100 projects, providing governance, management, and operational infrastructure to support their charitable purposes.” (And yes, these too are often left-leaning in ideology.)
Of note, in 2024, the last year for which tax forms are publicly available, NOF reported no donations to RPA or New Venture, but did give a little more than $100,000 to Tides.
The Rockefeller connection, given the dollar amount, is most interesting in light of Nell Newman’s affidavit as submitted to the court.
It includes a copy of a multi-page memorandum (labelled Exhibit “B”) apparently written in May 1999 by Bob Forrester and delivered to Paul Newman, in his capacity as Newman’s advisor on philanthropic matters.
The memo proceeds in a straightforward manner through various questions that Forrester felt Newman ought to be considering regarding his personal wealth and NOF – how much did Newman “want to provide for the future in terms of” his family, for example; and how much did he want to set aside “for carrying on philanthropic activities in the tradition of Newman’s Own” and so on.
On page 5 of the memo appears this paragraph (emphasis as in original):
Giving money away responsibly requires more care and thinking than making it in the first place. If not done in a thoughtful way, and with real insight, grant making can end up harming the receiving charity as well as the Foundation. Some good examples of how to handle next generations are the Rockefeller, Olins, Packards (see enclosed).
And then appears this line:
I could easily set up a meeting with the Rockefellers and their advisors. They are now into the fourth generation of family philanthropy.
There is precious little public information linking Paul Newman, NOF, and the Rockefeller philanthropic apparatus, or that helps explain what NOF accomplished with the $16 million granted to RPA.
We do know that Paul Newman and David Rockefeller were among the very early supporters of a still-active organization called “Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose.” CECP is a membership-driven non-profit founded in 1999, that provides advice on topics related to “corporate responsibility and sustainability.” Interestingly, CECP credits Bob Forrester, NOF’s former CEO, with helping found CECP.
As noted above, the lawsuit against NOF concluded suddenly and unexpectedly in March 2025, with both sides agreeing to an as-of-yet undisclosed settlement.
Some indications of the matters covered in the settlement may appear in NOF’s future public tax filings. Did the foundation pay the requested damages? What is to be the surviving four Newman sisters’ ongoing role in directing the foundation’s flow of money? And will the foundation (if it has not already done so) embrace a tighter conflict of interest regime, to prevent a repeat of the alleged practices highlighted in court?
The NOF board and management may have made a huge mistake in not pursuing an earlier settlement of the Newman sisters’ concerns outside the legal system. This would have spared months of legal expenses and avoided the heavy media interest that ensued. As it played out, the Newman’s Own Foundation was battered by courtroom revelations and reversals. That ordeal could have been avoided.
Compare this to another famous example of litigation over donor intent: the confrontation between Princeton University and the Robertson family over Princeton’s desire to override the family’s expressed intent around the uses of a $35 million foundation. No doubt wary of the reputational hits it might take as a trial proceeded, the university preferred to settle with the Robertsons. Princeton avoided a closely-scrutinized public court fight in which journalists would have been filing stories based on the evidence introduced and the statements made by witnesses testifying under oath.
As it stands, the Newman’s Own fight provides lessons in how not to resolve these disputes.
In a report posted at Bloombergtax.com, Jared Johnson of law firm White and Williams LLP addressed the philanthropic machinery Newman had constructed to carry out his intentions for NOF:
…[W]hile [Newman] was thorough in expressing his wishes [regarding the different elements of his estate], he didn’t provide his estate with the tools to properly secure their realization…
Newman also may have assumed too much, White added, about the long-term fidelity of some of his close advisors to the vision for NOF he had shared before passing.
Similarly, the late Martin Morse Wooster of the Capital Research Center wrote incisively and intelligently about the various difficulties involved in trying to preserving donor intent when setting up a foundation.
The essential issue that all such donors face has to do with the simple passage of time. Founders can explain their vision for their specific foundation. They can compress it into a written statement and leave that statement in the hands of family members and trusted advisors who will oversee the foundation after the founder’s passing.
But those family members and advisors will pass away as well. Eventually, that statement of purpose, however well expressed, must pass into the grasp of strangers who only know of the founder second- or even third-hand. The point comes where that statement is no longer the expressed will of the founder, but simply some words uttered by an unknown person who spoke long ago, leaving them open to interpretation and even radical re-intepretation.
No wonder, as Wooster often observed, many farsighted donors are often drawn to creating time-limited foundations, with the goal of donating the foundation’s last dollar within the donor’s anticipated natural lifespan. As Silicon Valley philanthropist Cari Tuna once told Wooster:
[W]hen you plan to spend down in your lifetime, you have much more to work with on an annual basis. Plus, you are not able to ensure that future stewards would do as good a job.
That’s not a glibly pessimistic judgement, but more of a realistic assessment, informed by many examples and precedents. This latest chapter in the story of the Newman’s Own Foundation may be taken by many potential creators of new foundations as one more reason to embrace the time-limited foundation option.
