Jump to content

attention gold diggers, worlds richest man getting divorced- Jeff Bezos


AUS-97HORN

Recommended Posts

The way I read the 8-K is that if she sells her shares on the open market, they regain their voting rights. If she sells them any other way, the buyer has to enter into the same agreement with Jeff regarding voting rights (i.e., they have none). I don't understand how this shit works, but #1, is it even possible to sell that huge a chunk on the open market? And #2, why would any institutional investor, etc, be interested in buying that large a stake if it has no voting rights?

Kinda seems like she got taken to the cleaners to me, given what she appeared to be legally entitled to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tokamak said:

The way I read the 8-K is that if she sells her shares on the open market, they regain their voting rights. If she sells them any other way, the buyer has to enter into the same agreement with Jeff regarding voting rights (i.e., they have none). I don't understand how this shit works, but #1, is it even possible to sell that huge a chunk on the open market? And #2, why would any institutional investor, etc, be interested in buying that large a stake if it has no voting rights?

Kinda seems like she got taken to the cleaners to me, given what she appeared to be legally entitled to.

lots of tech companies have dual class voting rights. institutional investors hate them but have no choice. theoretically, the non-voting rights shares should be discounted but often not in reality.

you would not sell $36B to the open market. you could sell chunks of millions. but with that large of a stake, many banks will give you loans against your shares so you never really have to sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tokamak said:

The way I read the 8-K is that if she sells her shares on the open market, they regain their voting rights. If she sells them any other way, the buyer has to enter into the same agreement with Jeff regarding voting rights (i.e., they have none). I don't understand how this shit works, but #1, is it even possible to sell that huge a chunk on the open market? And #2, why would any institutional investor, etc, be interested in buying that large a stake if it has no voting rights?

Kinda seems like she got taken to the cleaners to me, given what she appeared to be legally entitled to.

at some point, i imagine she saw all those zero's after the 36 and didn't give a fuck.  her kids are set.  she could give millions to all of her friends and families and still have billions.  why squabble over shit that simply does not matter.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Bezos's divorce, announced 4/4/2019 from MacKenzie Bezos; after 25 years, and is the most expensive divorce with MacKenzie Bezos getting $35 billion dollars [1][2]
Alec Wildenstein's divorce in 1999 from Jocelyn Wildenstein; estimated at $3.8 billion ($5.7 billion inflation adjusted).[3][4][5]
Rupert Murdoch's divorce in 1999 after 31 years of marriage from Anna; estimated at $1.7 billion ($2.6 billion inflation adjusted).[6]
Bernie Ecclestone's divorce in 2009 after 23 years of marriage from Slavica; estimated at $1.2 billion ($1.4 billion inflation adjusted).[7][6]
Steve Wynn's divorce in 2010 from Elaine; estimated at $1 billion ($1.1 billion inflation adjusted).[6]
Harold Hamm's divorce in 2012 after 24 years from Sue Ann Arnall; estimated at $974.8 million ($1.1 billion inflation adjusted).[8][6]
Adnan Khashoggi's divorce in 1980 after 20 years from Soraya Khashoggi; estimated at $874 million ($2.3 billion inflation adjusted).[9][6]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TonyTexas said:


Alec Wildenstein's divorce in 1999 from Jocelyn Wildenstein; estimated at $3.8 billion ($5.7 billion inflation adjusted).[3][4][5]
 

I'd pay this troglodyte $4B to go away so I could sleep at night without nightmares:
gettyimages-491917002.jpg?w968h681

MAIN-Jocelyn-Wildenstein.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, tucker said:

lots of tech companies have dual class voting rights. institutional investors hate them but have no choice. theoretically, the non-voting rights shares should be discounted but often not in reality.

you would not sell $36B to the open market. you could sell chunks of millions. but with that large of a stake, many banks will give you loans against your shares so you never really have to sell. 

That and selling that many shares in the open market dilutes the market value costing both her and Jeff billions.

With the way they did it, the two of them still control the same amount they did before which matters for estate planning/inheritance and what not.  The kids will eventually get it all or most of it.  She also avoids a long drawn out divorce and she still gets $35B.  Not sure how the payment works but she's managed to liquify her shares without brining them to make and diluting everything.  Not a bad strategy.

Edited by Aqua Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...