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 ...
Uhhhh..............and?????????????? Idiots huh?
Helping keep mankind warm for 65 years.
It may be nothing, but just wait.... it’ll be the lead in story for most of the MSM tomorrow including “the view”....
OMG! Romney made a poor stock pick!
She chose poorly and that is the breaks of stock trading. The reality is that she blew 80% of her settlement on dragging him back into court and the ensuing defamation lawsuit brought against her by Tom Stemberg and his new wife.
Well, obviously Romney was not wearing his Genie hat. You know, the one that confirmed that staples stock would rise in a year, so don’t sell you dumb t*at!
Stupid.
Anything to take the focus off the Libya scandal.
Maybe she should have invested in cattle futures.
Who did she sell the stock to?
That’s the guy that made out.
I could be wrong, but would any kind of revelation to price, or advance knowledge of an increase in it’s valuation, be akin to insider trading??? I think Romney would be in deeper s**t if he actually did if he actually did make any kind of claim of an increase in value.
Wasn’t the IPO price of Facebook’s stock raised several times before it even hit the first day of sale? And where is it today?
look a squirrel
she should have bought cattle futures
She walked away with 5 million. She had nothing to do with Staples value then, or it’s later success. Typical.
But revenge is coming. Woman fill law schools, medical schools, and top corporate positions.
More often than ever, they marry blue collar guys. When men start getting payouts just for sharing a bed with someone who earns exponentially more than them,,watch for a sudden change in the laws.
Pre-IPO stock is given a nominal value, which Mitt gave. I worked for a company that gave me pre-IPO options at a dollar a share.
This will be spun big time as an example of the War On Women and how Romney conspired to defraud this poor waif of millions.
Facts won’t matter in a coordinated media rollout by the Rats.
How is it anyone else’s fault if she sold the stock early instead of holding onto it until the value went up?
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.
This is an interesting contrast to an earlier story that showed the exact opposite. Don’t know if it is just spin or if the FR thread was being typically positive.
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.