She's clearly looking to cash in on her divorce and use her familiarity with Mitt for her financial gain. How can any judge allow this to happen?
This is what it boils down to: Allred got involved because of the perceived ‘injustice’ by the former wife. In the divorce, she got: the equity in the couple’s $700,000 Dedham house, some $100,000 in furnishings, 500,000 shares of Staples stock (worth roughly $13 million), $32,000-a-year in alimony, $24,000 in annual child support and other benefits.
According to an article in the Boston Globe in 2005, Maureen received nearly 500,000 shares of Staples stock in the divorce ... but sold half her shares before the company went public. The ex wife alleges that her attorneys advised her to sell the shares in order to pay her legal bills (she sued them and stated that verbatim). She made the decision to sell the shares before the IPO, which set the shares at $19.50 instead of the $2.00 they were worth at the time of the divorce. She made the bad decision based on her lawyer’s advice, not Romney’s advice - who had testified as to the value of Staples in the divorce proceedings.
Allred states that Mitt offered false testimony when he stated the value. WHich is BS - I’ve seen companies jump from $1.00 to $23.00 in a matter of hours, let alone over the course of years when they are building value and working toward an IPO.
Basically, the wife wants more money and Allred sees the caveat as the opportunity to smear Romney over nothing.