Robertson arguments set to begin

More than four years after the Robertson family filed its lawsuit against Princeton, lawyers representing the University and the Robertsons will today deliver arguments on seven motions before the court.

Though a trial date is likely months or years away, this week's arguments before Judge Neil Shuster in Mercer Country Superior Court are another step toward the resolution of the suit filed by the Robertsons in July 2002.

Both sides seek to resolve outstanding issues about the case, asking the judge for "summary judgments" on their motions.

The Robertsons have asked for judgment that the foundation was overcharged — specifically, that the University took funds for non-authorized purposes — and that Princeton violated its "fiduciary duty" to use foundation assets exclusively to advance the mission as stated by the donors.

The University, in turn, seeks rulings on four motions, including whether Princeton remains the foundation's "sole beneficiary" and whether choosing to use the Princeton University Investment Corporation (PRINCO) as manager of the foundation's assets was a valid business decision.

The Robertsons have also asked that Shuster invite a jury to make decisions on some of the arguments in the case because "Princeton was not the beneficiary of the gift ... it was a gift to the people of the United States," Robertson lawyer Seth Lapidow said in an interview. "Princeton was just the conduit the Robertsons chose."

The University opposes the addition of a jury to hear the case, arguing that it is an "unusual demand" that comes too late in the process.

University lead counsel Douglas Eakeley said the stakes of this week's proceedings will be tough to tell until Shuster makes his summary judgments, because the rulings will begin to shape the direction the case takes. "There is no way to measure how anyone is 'winning' until after Judge Shuster rules," Eakeley wrote in an email.

Lapidow said his side is "hoping to achieve clarity that Princeton University has a fiduciary responsibility to the Robertson family" and to "give the option for the judge to have the case heard by the citizens of Mercer County."

Lapidow explained that his arguments this week are not about specific grievances against the University, but questions of legal principle. "The arguments I'll be making are based on a hundred years of corporate law and hundreds of years of trust law," he said. "But they won't be about Princeton's excuses and explanations for their treatment of the Robertson funds."

The University has been embroiled in the high-profile dispute over the $650 million Robertson Foundation endowment since 2002, costing both sides more than $7 million in legal fees.

The family members allege that Princeton has misused the Foundation's funds by ignoring the original intent of the late donors Charles '26 and Marie Robertson, which they say was to place Wilson School graduates in federal government jobs, especially those in foreign policy. The University denies any misuse and says it does a good job of placing graduates in the public sector.

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

Once the issues being argued this week are resolved, Shuster will consider the backlog of pending motions on the case and begin pretrial preparations.

Last month, Wilson School Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter '80 said in a town hall meeting with graduate students that after this round of arguments, the next move will "probably be another round of negotiations."

She added, "If that doesn't work, the case would probably go to court around this time next year."

But Lapidow said he thinks the case could go to trial sooner, perhaps by the spring. "The judge knows we want [a trial] sooner rather than later," he said. The University, he added, "would like to see it tried in 2000-never."

The Robertson case has played out both in the courts and in the press, as the two sides trade increasingly harsh allegations and accusations.

The University filed two briefs in March, arguing that the Wilson School had upheld the Robertson Foundation's mission and appropriately allocated funds. The Robertsons countered in May with a motion to allow the testimony of two former State Department employees who were expected to testify that the school had not made a significant contribution to the Foreign Service. The two were eventually disallowed from testifying because of the department's regulations.

In late July, The Wall Street Journal published a column about donor intent that mentioned the Robertson case. It elicited a letter to the editor in support of the University's position by University Vice President and Secretary Bob Durkee '69. Ten days later, Bill Robertson defended his family's position in the case, contending that the family does not plan to "seize control" of the foundation, as Durkee alleged in his letter.

"We are looking forward to our 'day of judgment' and are confident that the outcome will guarantee our parents' wishes are honored," Robertson said in a statement earlier this month, when the family announced that it had created a new website, robertsonvprinceton.org, to publicize its arguments.

— Full 'Prince' coverage of the Robertson case