Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55

Thread: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

  1. #11
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    But it doesn't say anything about how she supposedly "contributed." This company was his, and successfully so, long before their marriage. Being a cheerleader doesn't count as a substantial contribution to real wealth. Any decent friend or family member should be a good cheerleader. No lawyer mandates you cut them a check for that. That's a completely ridiculous argument.
    If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.

  2. #12
    Villiage Idiot
    imagep's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Upstate SC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,580

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
    Demanding more than what one could realistically responsibly ever use, is pretty much my definition of greed. But like I asked earlier, maybe her demands aren't greed, maybe it's punitive to him.
    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    ...I'm not interested in debating someone who is trolling for an argument....
    Quote Originally Posted by Papa bull View Post
    I see a big problem with the idea that whatever the majority wants is OK.

  3. #13
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
    Well, then what's wrong with her just getting her normal salary, if she is still employed there? And if she is not, why should she get anything?

    At no point was she running the actual company. She was not the CEO. She was just a regular employee, with probably at least a dozen other people occupying the same position she was at any given moment in time. She didn't start it. She didn't lead it. She did a normal salaried position. She is entitled to whatever her salary is for as long as she continues to work there, or if for whatever reason she is owed backpay. Nothing more, nothing less.

    She is greedy. She's complaining about becoming a billionaire for work she never did.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Geesh...7 million a month? And she's whining?

    Should she actually get more?


    $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing' - Nov. 14, 2014
    His wife, Judith Ann should have gotten all of his assets when he cheated on her. He send Sue should have gone to prison.

    Since he and Sue aren't really married, she should get what she came with.
    Last edited by Paleocon; 11-14-14 at 07:36 PM.

  5. #15
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Demanding more than what one could realistically responsibly ever use, is pretty much my definition of greed. But like I asked earlier, maybe her demands aren't greed, maybe it's punitive to him.
    Amazing, so how did you define that her input made her settlement "disappointment" as greed yet he has no fault?

  6. #16
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    08-08-17 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Well, then what's wrong with her just getting her normal salary, if she is still employed there? And if she is not, why should she get anything?

    At no point was she running the actual company. She was not the CEO. She was just a regular employee, with probably at least a dozen other people occupying the same position she was at any given moment in time. She didn't start it. She didn't lead it. She did a normal salaried position. She is entitled to whatever her salary is for as long as she continues to work there, or if for whatever reason she is owed backpay. Nothing more, nothing less.

    She is greedy. She's complaining about becoming a billionaire for work she never did.
    How do you know what any of that was? None of these articles seems real clear on it yet somehow she is "greedy" and he is not. Explain that when we have no real idea what the relationship was of her input to the company. She seems to have an opinion. Now I am not saying she is right and he is wrong, just saying there must be more to the story here that most of you seem to want to ignore more than discover for this discussion we are having here.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Jeez...how can rich a guy be so stupid.

    It's called a 'pre-nup'.

    DUH...if a woman won't marry you with it, she does not love you.

  8. #18
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    How do you know what any of that was? None of these articles seems real clear on it yet somehow she is "greedy" and he is not. Explain that when we have no real idea what the relationship was of her input to the company. She seems to have an opinion. Now I am not saying she is right and he is wrong, just saying there must be more to the story here that most of you seem to want to ignore more than discover for this discussion we are having here.
    Your summary said she was paid. If she is no longer working there, why should she continue to be paid for work she isn't doing? If she *is* still working there, what's wrong with her normal salary? Why does she need a billion dollars on top of it?

    There cannot possibly be "more to the story" if she does not own part of the company. Whether or not it is legal or common, it is wrong for a grown adult to demand to be supported by someone they've divorced. If you don't want to be a partner, why do you deserve their money? You don't. It's quite simple. Unless there are some kind of legitimate damages -- and having to be a grown-up and figure out your own finances does not count -- you don't deserve the monetary support of someone you are not in a partnership with.

    There is quite simply nothing else to take into account ethically, regardless of whatever nonsense the law might allow.

    Someone who complains about receiving a billion dollars they did nothing to earn is simply greedy.

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mecca
    Last Seen
    01-14-15 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,426

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by imagep View Post
    Demanding more than what one could realistically responsibly ever use, is pretty much my definition of greed. But like I asked earlier, maybe her demands aren't greed, maybe it's punitive to him.
    What about what he could realistically ever use?

  10. #20
    Guru
    Declan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: $1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

    Quote Originally Posted by OrphanSlug View Post
    If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
    In my state it would be an issue largely of what the company was worth the day they split minus what it was worth the day they married divided by 2.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •