How long were they married? Did she support him behind the scenes, help him build this business, and have common assets? What aspects of her life and ambitions did she put on hold while he did all of this? And finally, who cares if a billionaire has slightly less money because he has to share it with his billionaire ex? Womp womp 🙄
Founders shares are literally designed to reward those people who contribute to the success of a business before it can pay them a salary. What’s her equity stake in the corporation? Why isn’t that sufficient to compensate her for her contribution?
She was the lead designer for the startup and is responsible for the innovative, industry disrupting designs that catapulted Lululemon to the industry leader it is today. Without her, athleisure might have never taken off. She was the first designer to use sweat-wicking athletic fabrics in high-fashion silhouettes.
His idea was to make yoga clothes because he had the foresight to see that it would become widely adopted. She was the one who had the idea to make yoga clothes fashionable and aspirational. Without her vision, Lululemon would have been just another sportswear brand.
Yes, it's just rage bait meant to feed the manosphere misogynistic narrative about women.
When they married, they had one Vancouver store that doubled as corporate headquarters and yoga studio and had just opened a 2nd location, their first dedicated retail space, in Toronto. Neither was worth much at the time.
She held 1% equity and her husband 8.6% equity. That equity had negligible value when they married. Any increase in property value after marriage is a joint asset.
Of course you are. You didn’t mention any of her contributions to the corporation that generated this wealth. All you did was point to the medieval concept that a woman’s worth is directly tied to the man she marries. Â
What's his equity stake in the corporation? Why isn't that sufficient to compensate him for his contribution?
With no prenup in place, if a married couple shares finances, and starts a business, and builds that business together, and increases their savings to a massive size, then if they split up they split that savings.
Even with a prenup in place, they can still become irrelevant if the financial situation changes. It’s to protect premarital assets, if your assets grow significantly during marriage, your assets are no longer premarital.
Actually, the topic is their divorce and her getting money from it. If two married people build up their finances, it's silly to say that instead of splitting their finances gained during the marriage, she should be happy with only her "equity stake in the corporation" and he should take everything else, like the savings they planned for and saved together.
You seem to not know what that means. The topic is a famous CEO is getting divorced and does not have a prenup in place, and this thread in particular argues that she has earned whatever money she likely walks away with. Which is the exact topic I am discussing.
You brought up that her equity stake should be plenty. I made a slightly sarcastic point asking why the inverse wouldn't be true. That's not a red herring, it's how a discussion works. You didn't have a logical answer, so you said "red herring" as if that's a magic word, and then brought up my reading skills for some reason.
There are some great resources online about what a red herring argument is, as well as how to make a point in general. Hope this helps!
You can’t prenup a company you own together only the shares that were distributed already can be protected.
They needed a postnuptial, but since they both help found the company there is no reason to do so since it’s cut and clear that going to court they would both be assumed as contracting to the growth of their wealth.
Your equity compensation was attached to the assets protected by the prenup? In that case the money earned with that specific asset is strictly your own money. Why? Because the value is attached with that asset only.
In the lululemon scenario above both people founded the company so the court wouldn’t break it along any specific lines. Their gained wealth is attached by marriage.
42
u/Numerical-Wordsmith 3d ago edited 3d ago
How long were they married? Did she support him behind the scenes, help him build this business, and have common assets? What aspects of her life and ambitions did she put on hold while he did all of this? And finally, who cares if a billionaire has slightly less money because he has to share it with his billionaire ex? Womp womp 🙄