Posted on 10/25/2012 7:31:05 PM PDT by Red Steel
CANTON, Mass. — Mitt Romney testified under oath in 1991 that the ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg got a fair deal in the couple’s 1988 divorce, even though the company shares Maureen Sullivan Stemberg received were valued at a tenth of Staples’ stock price on the day of its initial public offering only a year later.
At the time the Stembergs split, Romney suggested, there was little indication that Staples’ value would soon skyrocket.
Romney’s testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit brought in 1990 by Sullivan Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday in Norfolk Probate and Family Court at the Globe’s request. Sullivan Stemberg sued unsuccessfully to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and closed its first day of trading at $22.50 per share, 10 times the value she had received.
Stemberg left his wife in February 1987, and the divorce was finalized in July 1988. Before the official split, the couple negotiated an agreement in which Sullivan Stemberg got 500,000 shares of Staples stock, which Stemberg valued at $2.25 per share.
Sullivan Stemberg also kept the couple’s Dedham home, worth $690,000 at the time, and in February 1988 sold 175,000 shares of Staples stock at $2.25 per share to pay off the mortgage. She sold another 80,000 shares two months later, at $2.48 per share.
“In my opinion, that’s a good price to sell the securities at,” Romney, now the Republican nominee for president, testified in June 1991.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Big Bird!
Big Bird!
Binders of women!
Damn, how would that be?
Huh?
The ditz could have asked for STOCK instead of CASH, why did she not do this?
Her shares would then have gone up, like everyone elses.
If Romney had testified stock was worth 10 times more...then Staple’s wife would have gotten 1/10 as many shares. She should thank him!
He was testifying in 1991 about the valuation of Staples stock in 1987. There's nothing even closely resembling "insider trading" when you make a statement (subjective or otherwise) about shares of stock in a company four years after the date of a transaction.
She was stupid and greedy. It’s Romney’s fault
There is no there there. sheesh, he doesn’t even need Trump for this one.
This woman got a 5 million $ settlement. Not bad compensation if you ask me. Oh, by the way, stock market values change. No one forced her to sell her shares immediately. Basically, she was greedy and wanted an immediate payoff.
Yeah, if they had overrvalued the stock, he could have made out better theoretically. If he had 2 million in “undervalued” stock and a million in other assets, he could’ve given her 75% of the stock to give her half of his wealth.
If they instead said his stock was worth 10 million, then he’d only have to give her 55% of the stock to account for half of his total wealth.
So he probably lost more shares in the early settlement than he would have if the settlement had happened after the IPO.
If Mitt undervalued it, presumably she then received more of it if the decree was about giving her a fair share. I presume the judge was awarding her a set dollar value. It would take more share of an undervalued stock to cover the award. She squandered Mitts generosity.
Facebook was valued at $38/share. How did that work out on IPO day. One cannot lie when one is guessing.
The point wasn’t to get the court records unsealed, the ex-wife wants the ban on her talking lifted so she can make sh*t up.
For example: If she got x amount of shares to = 1 million
At $1 a share she would get 1 million shares
At $10 a share she would get 100k shares
So when the price went up 10x a year later, would she be happier owning 1 million shares or 100k shares?
Am I off base here? Sounds like she should thank Romney.
har
Pre-IPO price a year earlier when company fundamentals were shaky. He or Bain didn’t buy all the stock he could have at the time either.
Nothing to see here Gloria, move along. Oh wait, you knew that....
Um, let’s see. She’s given the stock in the settlement valued at $2.25 a share. She then sells it at 2.25 a share. I don’t see that Mitt would have to be Karnak to years later determine that it was worth 2.25 a share when she got it. I could have done that! Don’t see where anybody forced her to sell at that price.
Romney had nothing to do with the value or the sale. Later the woman came back at her ex to claim more financial support based on her crappy decision.
Now allred is blaming Romney. Of ourse the media will love this.
She decided to sell a large block of a highly illiquid stock just months after the 1987 crash, rather than waiting until it was public, liquidly traded and in the midst of an eventual market recovery.
He was right - at that time, in those circumstances, she likely couldn't have done much better.
Exactly. According to this article, Romney didn't testify under oath in an attempt to undervalue her divorce settlement. She got a divorce settlement. She sold too early. She then tried to renegotiate the divorce settlement AFTER everyone knew what actually happened with Staples. THIS is the point that Romney got called in to testify. The only story here is that Gloria Allred is a hack who is trying to distract everyone.
Somebody please prove that Romney was incorrect that on the dates she sold her pre-IPO stock, the stock was worth something other than what she got.
Where's the beef?
How is Romney to "blame" for anything?
The leftists are really getting desperate.
And more pathetic by the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.