Princeton University went back on the offensive Monday by filing two pre-trial motions refuting the Robertson family's allegations that $200 million of a $650 million endowment was diverted "for unauthorized purposes," and, in turn, by taking aim at Robertson family trustees, saying that in recent years the family has fought against reform initiatives.
The ongoing feud with the Robertson family and its lawsuit aiming to regain control over $650 million endowed to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs is likely to appear in court late this year.
But in the meantime, legal counsels on both sides have fired salvos in a case that has long been developing into a toxic issue.
The latest University maneuver comes in response to a pair of pre-trial motions made in January by the Robertson family seeking an order granting partial summary judgment concerning $18.6 million of charges to the Robertson Foundation "that defendants and defendants' own expert witness admit were improper."
In the second motion, Robertson attorneys have requested that the presiding judge, Neil H. Shuster of the Superior Court, Chancery division, rule that the University and the four University-appointed members on the Robertson Foundation's seven-member board hold "fiduciary duties to the Foundation to use its assets only to advance its mission."
A 159-page court filing, the motion also has attorneys for the plaintiffs, William Robertson, Anne Meier, Katherine Ernst, and Robert Halligan, requesting that those four trustees-the defendants in the case-not be protected by the business judgment rule because "Princeton's expenditures of the Foundation's money are interested transactions,' and the University-Designated Trustees are not disinterested or independent of Princeton." In addition to University President Shirley Tilghman, University-designated trustees include John J.F. Sherrerd, Peter Wendell, and Stephen Oxman.
In Monday's filings, the University said monies were spent properly, and argued that the foundation was charged approximately $235 million less than it could have been-an amount greater than all of the overcharges alleged by the plaintiffs.
Additionally, the briefs indicate that since the Robertson family sued the University in 2002 over control of how the endowment was invested, the three Robertson-appointed trustees on the foundation board have "voted in virtual lockstep against the vast majority of proposed expenditures or governance motions offered by the University-designated trustees" including the adoption of meeting minutes.
The University's most recent filings declare plaintiff William Robertson, son of Charles and Marie Robertson, the A&P grocery chain heirs who donated the original $35 million gift in 1961, as "no longer qualified" to serve as a foundation trustee. The filing left that issue open-ended, however, and indicated that the Delaware Court of Chancery could eventually take up the issue. The Robertson Foundation is headquartered in Delaware.
The briefs go on to say that claims accusing the University of overcharging the foundation are false, saying that the University, and not the foundation, funded monies involving a three-year, non-Woodrow Wilson fellowship program in question.
The $782,376 cost of the program was funded "entirely with income from non-Robertson Foundation endowments" the motion read.
In a statement, Mr. Robertson, his sisters Anne Meier and Katherine Ernst, and their cousin, Robert Halligan, said the University's position is based on an "incredible premise" and that there was no obligation to continue to fund the Woodrow Wilson School's graduate program, as it existed before Charles and Marie Robertson made their gift.
In response to the University's charges against Mr. Robertson's conduct in voting down a series of initiatives, the plaintiff said that it was based on his belief that the University had appropriated money not in line with the foundation's mission.
"We can look forward to a long and very interesting trial," Mr. Robertson said.