one for the good guys

[LdiJ]

Of course he will value the business low and she will value it high. Judges know this. The judge could have split the difference and given her 90 million and given him the business.

I really don't understand why you women get your jollies watching these jackass courts screw men over. Courts are supposed to be FAIR fair. There was nothing fair about what that jerk judge did. The judge thought the man was lying so the man got it shoved in his @ss. And of course as usual the woman got the better deal because the man was a scoundrel. BULLSH!T!!

Lets see....two people contribute equally to building a business (and I know this because I worked for them)....One of them tries to lowball the value of the business AND tries to claim that the other wasn't entitled to 50%, and THAT is the person you think got treated unfairly by the judge?

What do you think happened during that 10 years that she owned the business exclusively? Do you think it grew to be worth 600 million because she sat around doing her nails? No, SHE made that happen. SHE took the risks that had to be taken to cause that growth.

What if it had been reversed? What if he gave him the business and her 60 million, and the the business failed 10 years later? You would still be screaming that the guy got screwed.

 

[Bloopy]

1/2 120 million is 60 million.

He got half

If the judge had wanted to screw him he would have gotten 30 million, half of what he said it was worth.

 

[Bali Hai]

Lets see....two people contribute equally to building a business (and I know this because I worked for them)....One of them tries to lowball the value of the business AND tries to claim that the other wasn't entitled to 50%, and THAT is the person you think got treated unfairly by the judge?

What do you think happened during that 10 years that she owned the business exclusively? Do you think it grew to be worth 600 million because she sat around doing her nails? No, SHE made that happen. SHE took the risks that had to be taken to cause that growth.

What if it had been reversed? What if he gave him the business and her 60 million, and the the business failed 10 years later? You would still be screaming that the guy got screwed.

Well that didn't happen now did it!!! If he got the business and she got $60M and the business was worth $600M ten years later, you women and the puss nuts judges would throw the man in jail because you SUSPECTED wrong doing on his part!!

He low balled and she high balled. Simple as THAT!! You women are focusing on the low balls!!

 

[fairisfair]

He low balled and she high balled. Simple as THAT!! You women are focusing on the low balls!!

story of our lives. ROTFLMAO

 

[Bali Hai]

1/2 120 million is 60 million.

He got half

If the judge had wanted to screw him he would have gotten 30 million, half of what he said it was worth.

He got half of what she said it was worth ($60M)? She got half of what she said it was worth ($60M) and retained ownership of the business?

If you think that he got half using that rationale, you can't be anything other than a woman!

 

[tuffbrk]

Come on Bali - he said it was worth 60mm, she said it was worth 120mm - can't you just see the judge saying to her - if it's really worth $120mm, then buy him out? And then saying to the hubby - if it's only worth $60mm, then take the full value you claim, sign it over and run? Sounds to me like the judge called them both out to "prove" they believed what they were stating regarding the value. Can't say I blame the judge - their education is in law, not Finance. I imagine a lot of folks get scr*wed because the judges only half understand what they are looking at from a financial perspective.

Well, before I go on a rant on that topic - basically, all hubby had to do was say "Oops!" accounting error - but I'm guessing he didn't. I'm also guessing there was a lot more to the story and Ldi gave us only the facts relevant to the business.....

 

[Bali Hai]

Come on Bali - he said it was worth 60mm, she said it was worth 120mm - can't you just see the judge saying to her - if it's really worth $120mm, then buy him out? And then saying to the hubby - if it's only worth $60mm, then take the full value you claim, sign it over and run? Sounds to me like the judge called them both out to "prove" they believed what they were stating regarding the value.


The problem here is that the man was punished in court for exaggerating to get a better deal and the woman was rewarded in court for exaggerating to get a better deal!


Can't say I blame the judge - their education is in law, not Finance. I imagine a lot of folks get scr*wed because the judges only half understand what they are looking at from a financial perspective.

Well, before I go on a rant on that topic - basically, all hubby had to do was say "Oops!" accounting error - but I'm guessing he didn't. I'm also guessing there was a lot more to the story and Ldi gave us only the facts relevant to the business.....

I agree, LdiJ gave the facts with her slant on them.

 

[tuffbrk]

I'll agree somewhat and say - Perhaps! Maybe she exaggerated, maybe not. But on the surface, if she did it wasn't by much.

But again, we don't know all of the pertinent facts. It's possible that she sold off other assets to make the $60mm payout. But based on what we were given, the business clearly had enough resources to not just limp along but to eventually increase in value by 500% over a 10 year timeframe - and that was after dishing out or creating a liability for what was supposedly half of its value...sorry Bali - I try doing this every month with my paycheck and my bills and it's either there or it's not!!

Wish I had that kind of end product combined with that much business savy!

 

[LdiJ]

I'll agree somewhat and say - Perhaps! Maybe she exaggerated, maybe not. But on the surface, if she did it wasn't by much.

But again, we don't know all of the pertinent facts. It's possible that she sold off other assets to make the $60mm payout. But based on what we were given, the business clearly had enough resources to not just limp along but to eventually increase in value by 500% over a 10 year timeframe - and that was after dishing out or creating a liability for what was supposedly half of its value...sorry Bali - I try doing this every month with my paycheck and my bills and it's either there or it's not!!

Wish I had that kind of end product combined with that much business savy!

Actually...it was much simpler than that....and also more complicated.

He, and his team of attorneys and financial advisors valued the business at 60 mil, and claimed that she was entitled to no more than 20%....based on their respective shares, with no consideration for the fact that the business was a marital asset....and with no consideration for the fact that they jointly made the business what it was. You couldn't find anyone who worked for them who wouldn't have agreed that they were 50/50 in making the business.

She, and her team of attorneys and financial advisors (including bankers who were prepared to loan her the 60 mil to buy him out, and testified to such) testified that the business was worth 120 mil. From what I know, she cut him the check for 60 mil as soon as the judge signed the decree.

Basically the judge called his bluff. The judge gave him 100% of what he said the business was worth, and let her assume all the risk. She then in turn built the business into something than could be sold for 600 mil ten years later.

In all honesty, I don't think that he could have done the same. He was always the "idea" person, she was always the person who took the ideas and made them work financially.

Bali keeps stating that they each got 60 mil but she got the business....that was NOT what happened. He got cash, she got the business and assumed all of the risk of getting the business.

 

[CJane]

Bali keeps stating that they each got 60 mil but she got the business....that was NOT what happened. He got cash, she got the business and assumed all of the risk of getting the business.

Exactly. If HE'D received the business and it had failed miserably 10 years later (or less) would he have been entitled to recoup some of the 'losses' from HER because she MUST have over valued the business - evidenced by the failure?

 

[LdiJ]

Exactly. If HE'D received the business and it had failed miserably 10 years later (or less) would he have been entitled to recoup some of the 'losses' from HER because she MUST have over valued the business - evidenced by the failure?

Well....in the world according Bali, of course he would have been able to recoup some of the losses from her**************just a in the world according to BAli she had no right to be awarded the business.

This is a situation that is opposite of what Bali rants and raves about. This was NOT a woman who was a SAHM. This was NOT a woman who according to his definition was "lazy". This is a woman who worked her A$$ off during the marriage, but according to him did not deserve to be awarded the business because she was the "woman"...and deserves no credit for that fact that she grew the business over the 10 years before she sold it.

I think that this one is a clear indication that Bali doesn't "get it". I think that this one is a clear indication that if the roles were reversed, that Bali would be screaming and yelling if the woman attempted to gain any additional funds from the sale.

 

[Bali Hai]

Actually...it was much simpler than that....and also more complicated.

He, and his team of attorneys and financial advisors valued the business at 60 mil, and claimed that she was entitled to no more than 20%....based on their respective shares, with no consideration for the fact that the business was a marital asset....and with no consideration for the fact that they jointly made the business what it was. You couldn't find anyone who worked for them who wouldn't have agreed that they were 50/50 in making the business.

He and his attorneys said the business was worth $60M in anticipation she would get half (or less) of that OR that would be the buyout figure for HIM to retain the company and NOT HER!

She, and her team of attorneys and financial advisors (including bankers who were prepared to loan her the 60 mil to buy him out, and testified to such) testified that the business was worth 120 mil. From what I know, she cut him the check for 60 mil as soon as the judge signed the decree.

She and her attorney's said the business was worth $120M in anticipation that she would get half of that OR that would be the buyout figure for HIM to retain the company and NOT HER!!

Basically the judge called his bluff.

Why the hell didn't the judge call HER bluff?

The judge gave him 100% of what he said the business was worth, and let her assume all the risk. She then in turn built the business into something than could be sold for 600 mil ten years later.

Why didn't the judge give HER 100% of what she said the business was worth, and let HIM assume all the risk??

In all honesty, I don't think that he could have done the same. He was always the "idea" person, she was always the person who took the ideas and made them work financially.

Nobody cares about your female elitist opinions.

Bali keeps stating that they each got 60 mil but she got the business....that was NOT what happened.

No, that is NOT what I keep stating.

He got cash, she got the business and assumed all of the risk of getting the business.

THIS is what I keep stating:

Why didn't SHE get cash ($120M) and HE assume all the risk of getting the business??

 

[Bali Hai]

Exactly. If HE'D received the business and it had failed miserably 10 years later (or less) would he have been entitled to recoup some of the 'losses' from HER because she MUST have over valued the business - evidenced by the failure?

Well that isn't what happened now is it!! The reality is that the judge screwed this man over. There is NO IF about that!

 

[Bali Hai]

Well....in the world according Bali, of course he would have been able to recoup some of the losses from her**************just a in the world according to BAli she had no right to be awarded the business.

Are you saying that the man had no right to be awarded the business??

This is a situation that is opposite of what Bali rants and raves about. This was NOT a woman who was a SAHM. This was NOT a woman who according to his definition was "lazy". This is a woman who worked her A$$ off during the marriage, but according to him did not deserve to be awarded the business because she was the "woman"

That is total bullsh!t and you know it.

...and deserves no credit for that fact that she grew the business over the 10 years before she sold it.

I don't give a sh!t what she did with the business after her lawyers and the court stole it from her husband!

I think that this one is a clear indication that Bali doesn't "get it".

I get the whole picture LdiJ!! I don't think YOU do!!

I think that this one is a clear indication that if the roles were reversed, that Bali would be screaming and yelling if the woman attempted to gain any additional funds from the sale.

I don't believe either one of them should have attempted or collected any gain from the sale of the business after the divorce. But in this case as you have described it, the divorce property settlement wasn't FAIR! This is the kind of sh!t that happens years later when these one-way, pro-wife, manhating judges make their absurd rulings!

I'm saying the judge scewed this guy over because of one fact and one fact only, he was the HUSBAND!!

 

[tuffbrk]

Why didn't the judge give HER 100% of what she said the business was worth, and let HIM assume all the risk??

Because according to him, his finance people, lawyer, etc, the business was not worth that much money. The judge is not going to order him to pay $120k when he is claiming it is only worth $60k. How could a judge order him to buy out a business at twice its market value - as claimed by him? If the guy had been telling the truth and the judge made that order, where was he going to secure the add'l $60k from? Meanwhile she's sitting there with a check for $60k so -on the surface - it had to appear that she was closer to the truth on value than he was - so the only person the judge could call out - was him. He needed to own up to it and say oops! He didn't.

A judge ordering anyone to pay double the worth of an asset (umm...make that a fixed asset!!) would not be equitable or just....