Judge may grant claim changes

TRENTON — The judge hearing the Robertson Foundation suit said on Friday he will likely grant the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint against the University.

Judge Neil Shuster of Mercer County Superior Court will rule this week on the plaintiffs' request and also determine how much of the more than 1,000 pages of evidence attached to the proposed amended complaint will be made public.

On June 16, the Robertson family — relatives of Charles '26 and Marie Robertson, who gave $35 million in 1961 to support the Wilson School's graduate program — motioned to amend their lawsuit with a new roster of allegations. The case seeks to regain control of the nearly $600 million endowment behind the Wilson School.

The Robertson family sued in July 2002, asserting that the University has misspent more than $100 million of the Foundation's assets for projects not authorized by the gift's original purpose — training students for government service, especially in international affairs.

They now also claim that Princeton has a history of using foundation-specific gifts to supplement the University's general spending.

Before the parties sparred on the validity of the new claims, Shuster questioned why the Robertson lawyers did not first directly ask the University counsel about amending the complaint before coming to court.

"Part of me says this [hearing] is much ado about nothing," Shuster said. "I see it as an attempt by both sides to proffer their positions."

Seth Lapidow, a Robertson family lawyer, said during his remarks that the new claims were significant enough to warrant an amended complaint.

"The defendants wanted us to more clearly articulate our claims in this case, and now they are saying the full complaint is too much," Lapidow told the court.

The new claims are based largely on information and records the University provided the Robertsons in the case.

"Our allegations contain strong language alleging [the University of] fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty," Lapidow said. "Princeton seems bound to suppress as much information as they can, and this is not an indication of an innocent party."

William Robertson '72, the son of the original donors, complained about the University's penchant for secrecy, saying in an interview he had not been informed about Foundation-related expenditures despite his membership on the Foundation investment committee.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

"To see a gift given for such a worthwhile purpose distributed around the University with no regard is very upsetting," he said. "Other universities and programs could make effective use of these funds."

But Princeton's lawyer in the case, Douglas Eakeley, denied several of the charges.

"The proposed amended complaint should be rejected because it inconclusively accuses the defendants of wrongdoing," Eakeley told the court.

The new complaint says the four University-appointed foundation trustees named as defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and damaged the foundation by wasting its assets.

"Looking through all the documents, there is nothing to support allegations of specific wrongdoing by the defendants other than them participating in the PRINCO decision," Eakeley said.

In November, University members of the Robertson Foundation outvoted the family in a decision to give the University's investment firm PRINCO more control over the Foundation's investments.

The Robertson family viewed the 4-3 vote as another instance of the University taking control of the Foundation's assets.

Eakeley also objected to a "public relations blitz" that accompanied the plaintiffs' July motion to bolster their case. A joint confidentiality order entered into the high-profile case in May 2003 allowed some documents to be sealed but has not deterred the plaintiffs from talking to the press.

In his ruling this week, Shuster is expected to indicate how much of the new evidence will be filed along with an amended complaint.

"We believe the University's conduct over all this time is reprehensible and indefensible," Robertson lawyer Ronald Malone told the judge. "If the University trustees knew what was going on, they would put an end to it."

While Malone claimed the lawsuit to be "the most important donor-intent case in history," Judge Shuster was more subtle.

"We will deal with every small or big case as if each is the most important," Shuster responded.

If Judge Shuster accepts the Robertson's request, the University can motion to either answer or dismiss the amended complaint.

Each side will continue to provide documents to the other party and interview witnesses until February, when the investigative phase of the case ends.

Shuster then will hear arguments about whether the case should proceed.

"The case ought to be resolved if it can be, but to date we haven't seen opportunities for closure as the parties remain worlds apart on the mission of the Foundation," Eakeley said.

A trial is tentatively scheduled for October 2005 if the parties don't settle.