Dividing assets on divorce can be an expensive and bitter business
Cynics say marriage is the worst financial mistake most men ever make. Even if they are wrong, divorce might prove them right.
He criticised the “completely disproportionate” legal bills spent on the case by Mark Evans, a successful businessman, and his estranged wife Jenifer.
While the multi-million pound assets involved in this case are exceptional, the sad fact is that it’s not unusual for unhappy husbands and wives to reach for their lawyers. With one in three marriages now ending in divorce and the Office for National Statistics attributing a 5pc increase last year to “financial strain caused by the recession” what can divorcees do to limit the financial damage?
Alison Hawes, a partner in the family law team at nationwide lawyers Irwin Mitchell, said: “Too many people think that spending money telling lawyers to be nasty to their exes will make them feel better.
“I have been instructed to write angry letters – in one case criticising the husband for emptying the garage of all his tools and the lawn mower when he left to set up home with his girlfriend. My client wanted to point out that she could scarcely be expected to cut the grass with scissors which was all he had left behind.
“The response was that the husband would be amazed if she could find the lawn, let alone the scissors. The ping pong of correspondence degenerated very quickly into each party slinging mud not only about their roles in the house, but also their respective shortcomings in the bedroom.
“The best advice we can give clients to help them not spend hundreds of thousands of pounds is to stay as businesslike as possible and make sure they line up good emotional support as they go through the process, from family, friends and from counsellors.”
Ruth Bross of family law solicitors Bross Bennett agreed: “Perhaps there is another drama being played out here – revenge, jealousy, bitterness, greed, the desire to punish a former partner, an unwillingness to move on with their lives.
“Clients often come to me with a very rigid view of what they want to achieve, and they can become obsessed by the concept of ‘winning’ no matter what the cost – but this is a luxury that most people cannot afford.
“Of course, there some points which are worth arguing about, for example obtaining enough from a financial settlement to re-house or to meet basic outgoings. However, I have had clients who have spent thousand of pounds arguing over who keeps the furniture, crockery or pets. My advice to clients is that in the end it is always about the cost, not the principle.”
Perhaps the best way to reach a satisfactory end is to start from the right place. Simon Bruce, a partner at Farrer solicitors of Lincoln’s Inn Fields, told me: “Prevention is better than a cure. Make your best offer to settle as soon as you can. It brings difficult clients to the table and puts them under serious costs pressure if they refuse it.
“Remember, it’s a free world. You don’t have to get married. But if you do, you can choose to have a pre-marital contract to protect your assets. Only people from outer space don’t know they can protect you.
He should know. Mr Bruce represented German heiress Katrin Radmacher whose pre-nuptial agreement helped persuade the Supreme Court in London to cut her French former husband’s divorce settlement from £5m to £1m two years ago.
That set a new precedent in English law but emotional and practical problems remain. As Sandra Davis, head of family group at lawyers Mishcon de Reya, pointed out at the time: “Imposing contractual terms on personal relationships is now fine from a legal perspective; but it is still less likely to be so from an emotional perspective.
“As a nation we’re culturally uncomfortable talking about money. But negotiating the terms of a pre-nup necessitates frank and difficult financial discussions in advance of a marriage about what should happen in the event of a divorce.
“The Supreme Court has proposed that the courts should give effect to a nuptial agreement that is freely entered into by each party with a full appreciation of its implications – unless it would not be fair to hold them to their agreement.”
For example, that could exclude pre-nups which infringe children’s rights or where one partner took legal advice before signing the contract but the other did not. As a general rule, courts will seek fairness and reasonable behaviour in pre-nuptial contracts and divorce.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to recognise that, as Elizabeth Wyse, author of Debrett’s Guide to Civilised Separation, explained: “It may be tempting to throw your husband’s vintage wine down the loo or shred his best suit, but judges will take a dim view of this behaviour. Hold your head high and retain the civilised high ground.”
Finally, remember that nine in 10 divorcees manage to separate without litigation. Alimony costs mean only the very rich or very poor can afford divorce, which can prove ruinous for those in the squeezed middle.
Source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk
London Mayor Boris Johnson says army presence will add 'tone' to 2012 Olympics - The Independent
With just two weeks to go until the opening ceremony, the military has been called in to plug a gap left by the failure of private provider G4S.
An extra 3,500 servicemen and women are being flown in after the company said it might not be able to provide enough guards for all the venues.
The Mayor today said he was confident the Olympics would be very safe and the presence of the Army would add "tone" to the occasion.
"I think we are in the stage now of pre-curtain-up jitters and you would expect the media, quite properly, to be focusing on all the areas where people feel there may be imperfections or things we need to nail down and clearly transport and security have always been the big question marks.
"But I'm very confident that at this stage London is better prepared for the Olympics than any previous Olympic city has ever been."
Asked if G4S had his confidence, he said: "I think the Games are going to be very safe, very secure and the arrangements that are going to be made by G4S, by the Armed Services, will deliver very good results.
"We have increased the number of people who will be involved and I think anybody who goes to Wimbledon and sees the role of the Armed Services in venue security, making the thing run well, will like it. It will add an element of tone to our proceedings over the next few weeks."
Mr Johnson was speaking after he unveiled a plaque officially opening the new Hippodrome Casino on the corner of Leicester Square in London and said the venue was a boost for the capital.
"I think it's a great shot in the arm for this part of London and it's changing the whole time. We are seeing a lot of money being pumped into this part of town and this is a new magnet, lodestar, honey pot, whatever the word I want is, for high rollers around the world who are going to come and, I hope, unbelt significant quantities of foreign currency here in our city and cement 450 new jobs which this revitalised Hippodrome has created."
Mr Johnson joked that bankers could learn lessons about the consequences of gambling from such an establishment.
"One of the educations that this casino could provide is for bankers who don't fully understand the risks they are taking with money and the terrible inevitability of losing if you don't calculate the risks correctly," he said.
Simon Thomas, chairman and co-owner the casino, said: "We have been on site now for three years, we have taken two grade II-listed buildings on the busiest corner in London and turned it into the largest casino-led adult entertainment complex in London.
"We have five bars, three gaming floors, a 180-seat cabaret, a 150-cover restaurant, four private dining rooms and have created a space we hope London will be proud of."
Mr Thomas said he was not concerned about opening a casino in times of economic hardship.
"England is in recession but London is not, London is booming away. We have thousands of tourists going past every day, lots of people in the UK who go to casinos too. Our clients will be anyone over 21 who wants a fantastic night out."
Source: www.independent.co.uk
London Olympic tickets: everything you need to know - The Guardian
Can I still buy Olympics and Paralympics tickets?
Yes. The official London 2012 ticket seller has tickets for many events still available on a first come, first served basis (using Visa only, of course), although not in the athletics, swimming or cycling. The tickets remaining are for basketball, beach volleyball, sailing, volleyball and wrestling, with prices ranging from £20 to "suite tickets" in the North Greenwich Arena costing up to £450 for some events.
Can I transfer tickets to someone else?
Officially, tickets are non-transferable. However, London 2012 terms and conditions state that: "Providing you as the lead booker are contactable on the day in case of query, a member of your family or a friend may use tickets you can no longer use."
I can't go anymore and no one else wants my canoe slalom tickets. Can I return them?
Yes. If you are no longer able to use the tickets you have purchased from London 2012, you can submit them for resale at face value through the official London 2012 ticket resale programme. As tickets are meant to be non-transferable (see above), you are forbidden from selling or advertising them for sale on the internet, in newspapers or anywhere else other than via the official ticket resale programme. However, it's not guaranteed that your tickets will be resold, so you could still end up out of pocket.
I've seen tickets for sale through an external ticketing organisation. Are they legitimate?
Some are, but many aren't. In June, the Met police cracked down on illegal tickets (targeting 30 international websites and 970 individuals), indicating the scale of the black market. London 2012 has a list of unauthorised ticket resellers on its website, which are clearly ones to avoid. If you want to check a website, visit the same page and type the address in the box – if it's authorised, a green box will pop up; if not, a red box will appear.
I live in Spain and the US. How can I find a legitimate ticket seller?
London 2012 has separate lists for residents around the world, for both the Olympics and Paralympics. For example, Cosport in the US is the authorised Olympic tickets reseller, while Aristeia in Spain has the honour.
I've had lots of emails offering cheap last-minute tickets. Are these scams?
Possibly. London 2012 says it is aware of cases where emails are sent falsely claiming to be from London 2012, or other organisations involved in the Games, but are actually "the first step in a fraud scam". Common scams include: emails/letters informing the recipient they have won an Olympic lottery that they haven't entered; emails/letters to manufacturing companies, asking them to pay large fees in order to provide items for the Games; and emails/letters informing the recipient that they can apply for a job involved with the Games for a fee. Ignore any communication that asks you to reveal information such as bank details or to part with money up-front.
Are prestige tickets still available?
Yes. Along with tickets to the event you wish to attend, a prestige pass ("the ultimate Games experience" according to the organisers) offers access to hospitality areas offering fine dining and bars, as well as your very own souvenir programme. Sold via Ticketmaster, prestige tickets are still available for gymnastics (from £595), track cycling (from £695), basketball finals (from £594), athletics evening medal sessions (from £1,800), equestrian (from £495) and rowing (from £995).
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
London Losses For JP Morgan Double To $4.4bn - Sky.com
London Losses For JP Morgan Climb To $4.4bn
Updated: 1:19pm UK, Friday 13 July 2012
US investment bank JP Morgan has admitted that losses from failed hedging bets now exceed $4bn – more than twice its previous estimate.
The bank said it also lowered its first quarter profit by $459m (£296m) after traders in its chief investment office misstated the value of their positions in Q1.
The company said the misstatements reflected material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting in the quarter.
In May it announced a loss of $2bn (£1.3bn) over the bets but has now upped the figure to $4.4bn (£2.84bn) as it released Q2 figures.
Net income was $4.96bn (£3.2bn) compared with $5.43bn (£3.5bn) a year earlier.
Meanwhile, the trader known as the London Whale, whose was said to have been instrumental in the bad bets, has reportedly left the investment bank.
The Wall Street Journal said he was one of three London-based employees to depart over the failed hedging bets.
It said Achilles Macris, Javier Martin-Artajo and Bruno Iksil - dubbed the London Whale over the size of his market-moving bets - were taken off the company's internal employment database on Thursday.
CEO Jamie Dimon is holding a lengthy media conference today in an attempt to draw a line under the damaging issue which has affected both the bank’s shares and its reputation.
The London team had taken bets that were designed to protect the bank by hedging against its other investments, but the strategy dramatically backfired.
The revelation hit banking shares across the world in May and heightened calls for more regulation in the UK.
Since then the Libor rate-fixing scandal centred on Barclays has further angered both public and politicians amid calls for tighter banking controls and segregation of investment to retail banking arms.
All three traders worked for the bank's chief investment office, which was run by New York-based Ina Drew, a leading investment banker who resigned in May.
The WSJ also said JP Morgan is expected to reclaim compensation from all four people.
Source: news.sky.com
London 2012 Olympics: 14 days to go - live blog - The Guardian
Let's look forward for a moment and take a peek at some of the dos and don'ts of the Games. If you haven't seen it, Locog has produced an extremely informative list of things that you won't be allowed to bring into the games venues (if you're a patriotic, big hat-wearing, vuvuzela-blowing, phone-jammer packing, flick knife-carrying type who's fond of a drink, I'm afraid it could be bad news).
Here are some of the items on the prohibited list:
Alcohol; liquids in quantities over 100ml, tents, placards, spray paint, walkie-talkies, radio scanners and phone-jammers, laser pointers and strobe lights, roller skates and skateboards, sharpened combs, explosives and flares, firearms and ammunition
And here are some of the items on the restricted list:
Large flags (bigger than 1m x 2m); flags of countries not participating, oversized hats (sadly no dimensions given), balls, rackets, frisbees, noisemakers such as hunting horns, air horns, klaxons, drums, vuvuzelas and whistles
Don't say you weren't warned ...
A fan blows a vuvuzela at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Olympic fans may not be able to follow suit. Photograph: Tom Jenkins for the Guardian Source: www.guardian.co.uk
London 2012: The great Olympics sponsorship bandwagon - BBC News
Once upon a time the Olympics was about amateurism and the pleasure of sport. But now there is a distinctly commercial ring to them. So has the Olympics become too much about sponsorship?
Every day there's inspirational footage of the torch relay in the British media.
But anyone lining the route has to wait as a veritable cavalcade of vehicles - with the relay's three sponsors Coca Cola, Lloyds TSB and Samsung shouting over speakers and handing out flags - trundle by before the torch bearer eventually comes along.
It makes people realise that the commercial element is a massive part of the Games now.
Sponsorship has become increasingly important over recent years, both for the brands and the governing bodies footing the bill.
The UK government even passed a new law - the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 - which, together with the Olympic Symbol (Protection) Act of 1995, offers a special level of protection to the Games and their sponsors.
As well as introducing an additional layer of protection around the word "Olympics", the Games' mottoes and symbols, the law bans unauthorised "association". This bars non-sponsors from employing images or wording that might suggest a link to the Games.
The act has already led to stories of individuals and small businesses falling foul of the rules.
Way back in 2007, Dennis Spurr, a butcher from the Fantastic Sausage Factory in Weymouth, Dorset, was reportedly told to take down a sign showing five sausage rings in the shape of the Olympic logo, with 2012 written underneath. He changed the rings to squares and 2012 to 2013.
Last year, bakers at the British Sugarcraft Guild were reportedly told that using Olympic symbols in icing and marzipan modelling would breach copyright.
Others caught up included a florist that put up Olympic rings made of tissue paper, and an 81-year-old granny hoping to sell a £1 doll - wearing a hand-knitted sports kit with a GB 2012 logo and Olympic rings - in a fundraising sale.
The University of Derby was reportedly forced to take down a banner that read "supporting the London Olympics".
And last month, Birmingham Royal Ballet's artist director David Bintley was ordered to change the name of his latest production from "Faster, Higher, Stronger" - the Olympic motto - to "Faster".
Critics have accused Locog of embarking on an extreme crackdown, and dubbed them the "Olympic brand police".
"Whilst the Olympic movement has every right to protect its registered trademarks and properties, I feel it has been allowed to go too far in protecting its sponsors in the case of the London Olympics. Proscribing certain everyday words only damages the tens of thousands of small businesses that might share in the Olympics feel good factor," says David Thorp, of the Chartered Institute of Marketing.
But Locog says the London 2012 brand is its "most valuable asset", and "if[ it] did not take steps to protect it from unauthorised use and ambush marketing, the exclusive rights which [its] partners have acquired would be undermined".
It is not just the zeal with which Locog has been enforcing brand protection laws that has caused controversy.
Others have objected to the type of brands that have been chosen as official sponsors.
Human rights and environmental pressure groups have campaigned against BP, Dow Chemical - which now owns the firm behind the Bhopal gas leak disaster in 1984 - and Rio Tinto. All three companies have defended their ethical record.
Health issues have also been raised, with London Royal Free cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra saying it is "obscene" that the Olympics has chosen to associate itself with fast food (McDonald's), sugary drinks (Coca-Cola), chocolate (Cadbury's) and alcohol (Heineken) when there is an obesity epidemic.
Olympic boxing silver medallist Amir Khan has also criticised London 2012 organisers for allowing McDonald's to open their largest-ever restaurant - which will have 1,500 seats - in the Olympic Park.
The extent of the exclusivity arrangements has also caused consternation, with McDonald's making headlines for a spat over its chip monopoly and Visa coming under fire for effectively banning the use of rival cards at Games venues.
Olympic fans have also had to contend with the confusion of re-named venues, with the O2 centre now called the North Greenwich Arena and Coventry's Ricoh Arena the City of Coventry Stadium.
Meanwhile, athletes have been warned not to tweet or blog about any brand that's not an official sponsor.
So why is the Olympics so much about sponsorship, when did it happen, and are the brand protection laws necessary?
Locog's position is simple. It says in order to stage the Games, it had to raise at least £700m in sponsorship, and it could not have done that if it did not offer its partners protection.
The IOC is similarly clear, saying without the support of its official commercial partners, the Games would not be able to happen.
But for others, the "Olympic brand circus" is doing more harm than good.
"When you get brands parading like peacocks rather than sharing the real essence of the Olympic spirit - it becomes a farce verging on propaganda," says brand consultant Jonathan Gabay.
"There are now so many restrictions because of the sponsors that the 2012 Games are set to be more censored than the Beijing Games."
When you go back to the origins of the Games, the Olympics' has almost done an 180 degrees turn on its amateur and original ideals, says Tony Collins, director of the International Centre for Sports History and Culture at De Montfort University.
He says the first small sponsorship deals started to emerge in the 1930s, normally with local companies, and grew in the 1970s, but it wasn't until 1984 that the Los Angeles Olympic Organising Committee decided to pursue sponsorships. This came after the financial disaster of the 1976 Montreal Games.
The 1976 Games led to a change in the sponsorship model, according to Simon Chadwick, professor of sport business strategy and marketing at Coventry University Business School.
"In Montreal, the Olympic Games had 628 official partners, and a lot of them began to question whether they were seeing any value. Lots of fans and media became cynical and questioned the commercial nature of the Olympics, and the IOC were concerned about what was happening, so in 1984 they decided to stop selling lots of sponsorship for relatively small amounts of money and sell a few brands for a lot of money.
"Which is why if Coca Cola is spending upwards of £100m for a right of association, which is clearly a huge amount of money, the IOC understands brands need category exclusivity."
Then there was the ambush marketing phenomenon - where non-sponsors try to cunningly exploit the Games. The IOC obliged host nations to pass legislation to protect official sponsors from stunts, Chadwick says.
There is no protection for other specific events - such as those of UEFA or FIFA - within the UK, but there is in other countries, according to Phillip Johnson, barrister and associate professor of intellectual property law at University College Dublin. It is becoming part of a trend.
"Portugal granted local protection for Euro 2004. Italy gave protection to Turin for the 2006 Winter Olympics, Canada had protection for the 2010 Vancouver Games and Beijing has anti-ambush marketing laws as well. Brazil has already introduced its anti-ambush marketing laws for 2016.
But Johnson says although the 2006 act has a "broad scope and the uncertainty makes the association right very controversial", as far as he is aware, although Locog have warned people not to do things and strongly exerted their rights, they have not actually started any proceedings for infringement of rights.
"Locog would have to be careful about which cases it brings as it does not want to damage the reputation of the Olympics by bringing the wrong case."
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Embrace London's distance learning courses and reap the rewards - Daily Telegraph
There are now more than 50,000 students from 180 countries participating in London’s International Programmes, taking a bewildering array of distance learning courses under the aegis of one of the 12 University of London colleges affiliated to the programmes. The latest course on offer, from 2012-13, is a Combined Degree Scheme, allowing students to take a major and minor subject, perhaps wildly different in content. When it comes to careers, it would seem, fewer and fewer people are prepared to put all their eggs in one basket.
While some London students are happy to study for the sake of study, the great majority, not surprisingly, have a hard-headed professional agenda. In an ever more complex world, where people know that their lives can be profoundly shaped by bankers in Frankfurt or New York, but not always how or why, University of London MBAs and other business-related degrees are particularly sought after, as students from as far afield as Shanghai and Melbourne try to beef up their CVs and keep ahead of the pack.
“Our MBA students come from all over the world and all walks of life,” says Mike Kerrison, director of academic development for the University of London International Programmes. “They appreciate the flexibility of our programmes, as they often find themselves moving around the globe, whether for career or family reasons. But what is gratifying, from our point of view, is how they nearly always tell us how useful the MBA has been in advancing their careers, often leading directly to a promotion.”
MBA students are often assumed to be corporate careerists, ambitious and upwardly mobile, using an MBA as a stepping stone to an eventual board level appointment. But many are simply would-be entrepreneurs realising that they need some professional know-how if their businesses are to prosper. Often the best way to start a successful business is to study, in forensic detail, other successful businesses in the same field.
Just as a would-be Olympic medallist could learn from studying videos of Usain Bolt or Sir Steve Redgrave, so someone starting up an online retail business in their garage in Singapore could do worse than study how Bill Gates or Sir Richard Branson made their billions. An MBA, by itself, guarantees nothing. But it teaches students how to subject business plans to proper, rigorous scrutiny, so that elementary mistakes, hopefully, can be avoided.
“That is the beauty of a good MBA”, says Kerrison. “It is as relevant to an entrepreneur wanting to use academic theory to underpin their own business ideas as it is to someone working within a corporate environment, whether at board level or in middle management.”
While London offers a range of specialist business-related degrees and diplomas in areas such as finance and IT, its MBA in International Management, delivered by Royal Holloway College, is probably the ideal course for students wanting to learn to think strategically in a global business environment. It is a demanding course, not suitable for dilettantes, but it covers all the bases.
“What we find among all our students is a real passion for the subject they are pursuing,” says Kerrison. “That is hugely important to us as we place a high value on lifelong learning.”
Think of a London MBA as a 100m sprint and you are likely to be disappointed. Think of it as a marathon, gruelling but ultimately satisfying, and you are likely to last the distance, even finish among the medals.
This article was originally published in The Telegraph Weekly World Edition
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment