Frequently Asked Questions on Hines, et al. v. Texas A&M University 12th Man Foundation, et al.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Why haven’t these Plaintiffs attempted to work out their differences with the
Foundation outside of court? Isn’t this really a family dispute?

Yes, this is a family dispute, and the Endowed Donor plaintiffs made every attempt to work
it out privately with the Foundation. However, the Foundation rebuffed the Endowed
Donors at every turn. Indeed, before this lawsuit was filed, the Endowed Donors’
representatives sent detailed letters outlining their concerns, requesting a meeting, and
identifying key documents, to the Foundation Board Chair, its outside counsel, Chancellor
Sharp, and the Texas A&M System Board of Regents. No one responded. Before that,
phone calls went unreturned. Because the Foundation summarily dismissed the Endowed
Donors’ complaints, the Endowed Donors had no other recourse but to file a lawsuit.

2. What is wrong at the Foundation?

It is a reality that money rules college football. At the intersection of money and morality,
a strong moral compass is required. Unfortunately, increased emphasis on fundraising has
been allowed to displace honoring promises made to loyal Aggies. The Foundation’s
refusal to honor promises to faithful Aggies is wrong and contrary to Aggie core values.

3. What do Endowed Donors want?

Endowed Donors want the Foundation to do what its employees said it would do. No more,
no less. When times were lean, Endowed Donors purchased benefits that were represented
to be “best available” seating and parking locations for either lifetime or 30-year terms,
depending on when the deal was done. Foundation employees who made those
representations have acknowledged them under oath. Seat and parking locations were
chosen and considered “established” for the duration of the endowment. Internal
Foundation documents acknowledge these contractual rights. For decades, the Foundation
honored its promises. It should continue to do so.

4. A similar class action lawsuit was previously unsuccessful in the Eastern District of
Texas. What is different about this suit?

A previous class action was brought in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas. That
lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds because the federal court determined that the
action was more appropriate for a state court resolution. That is why this class action has
been brought in state court.
5. The previous class action lawsuit was being handled by Debra Hayes. Why is she no
longer handling this suit?

Unfortunately, in the early stages of resolving this matter, Mrs. Hayes’s health began to
decline. Ultimately, she was unable to continue representing the Endowed Donors, and
Cobb & Counsel, PLLC was retained to replace her. Mrs. Hayes has since passed.

6. Why has it taken so long to bring this lawsuit against the Foundation?

Litigation has always been the last resort for the Endowed Donors. Before filing a lawsuit,
and bringing negative public attention to the Foundation, the Endowed Donors wished to
amicably and privately resolve their issues with the Foundation. The Endowed Donors
attempted to make contact on numerous occasions, including by telephone calls to the
Foundation’s outside counsel, and by writing detailed letters to Chancellor Sharp and the
TAMU System Board of Regents, enclosing an explanation, key documents, and a
proposed resolution. Similar materials were sent to the Foundation’s Board of Trustees
Chair. Ultimately, telephone calls and these letters went unreturned and were ignored.

The Endowed Donors thus exhausted virtually every avenue to engage the Foundation in a
discussion, but the Foundation refused even to acknowledge us. After so many failed
attempts, the Endowed Donors were left with no choice but to file suit.

7. Aren’t these Endowed Donors just a small disgruntled few?

No, many Endowed Donors have stood up to the Foundation’s breaking its word. At least
22 owners of 12 endowment agreements previously sued, or threatened suit. That group
included 4 past Presidents of the Houston A&M Club or the Fort Bend A&M Club, all of
them credible, unselfish leaders who have devoted much of their personal lives to serving
Texas A&M. Why would they sue, or threaten to sue, the Foundation, unless there were
good reason?

The 15 named Plaintiffs in this lawsuit represent the 31 owners of 17 endowments. They
are a small fraction of the several hundred endowment owners whose seat locations and
parking locations were taken away and sold to the highest bidder by the Foundation. They
are pillars of the community, including a physician, commercial airline captain, engineers,
a bank president, lawyers, real estate professionals, and energy professionals. They just
want the Foundation’s leadership to do the right thing by keeping its promises. They want
to know that integrity is more important than money.

8. Haven’t the Endowed Donors been treated fairly?

Fairness starts with keeping one’s word, not lying or using half-truths and obfuscation to
conceal heavy-handedness. A deal is a deal. If you promise to do something, you do it.
Period. Endowed Donors want only what they were promised, nothing more. Second,
claimed “fairness,” whatever that subjectively means, is not a defense to breach of contract
(nor is it an excuse to break one’s word). Third, at a time when the Foundation was
struggling financially, and with relatively few financial supporters, Endowed Donors paid
 what were then very large sums, on faith and trust that the promises made to them to induce
those payments would be kept.

9. What is the evidence?

Sworn testimony. We now know what two executive directors and a development officer
promised endowed donor prospects, because we’ve questioned them under oath about what
they had said. That testimony is consistent with what the Endowed Donors say. We also
have sworn testimony from former Trustees that is corroborative and supportive of the
Endowed Donors’ version of events.

Foundation documents. Even the Foundation’s internal documents say the Endowed
Donors have “contracts” and “established seat locations.” One, referring in 2013 to the
endowed donors with lifetime benefits, acknowledges they have “a lifetime seat location.”