Latest news with #fiduciaryDuty
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
My new husband gave me a contract and told me to ‘sign here' — but I refused. It was the best decision of my life.
My former husband started house hunting during our engagement. A few months into our marriage, he took me to meet who I thought was our prospective builder. It was a contract sabotage. My new husband signed the last page without even looking at the other pages. He then passed the contract to me, and I was told to 'sign here.' I turned to page one and began reading. My husband said there was no need to read the contract, and to just sign below his signature. Continuing reading, I discovered 'our' new home loan listed my home as equity. Further on I read that 'our' new home would be titled in his name only. When I refused to sign, I was informed I had to sign because he had. 'He failed in his fiduciary duty': My brother liquidated our mother's 401(k) for her nursing home. He claimed the rest. 'The situation is extreme': I'm 65 and leaving my estate to only one grandchild. Can the others contest my will? I help my elderly mother every day and drive her to appointments. Can I recoup my costs from her estate? My new husband gave me a contract and told me to 'sign here' — but I refused. It was the best decision of my life. My daughter's boyfriend, a guest in my home, offered to powerwash part of my house — then demanded money I responded, 'Then he just bought a house,' and I continued to refuse to sign. I was told he didn't qualify without the equity in my house. I said I didn't see that as being my problem. They both went ballistic, demanding I sign. I quietly picked up my purse, walked out of the building, and was halfway to my house when my husband offered me a ride. Our marriage didn't last long. After he moved out of my house, I received a package in the mail. Inside were divorce papers, which were clearly in his favor. On the last page was a little sticky arrow that said 'sign here.' Again, it was never going to happen! I still got burned in the end, but just around the edges. When I sold my house years later, all the profit was mine. Never just 'sign here,' especially if someone, even your husband is telling you to do so. Not signing was the best decision of my life. Happily Divorced P.S. The contract intentionally, on his part, failed to disclose both our credit-card debt. Had I signed, we'd both be guilty of fraud. He didn't reveal the exclusion until well into the 'sign here' pressure push. He claimed not 'including' my debt was doing me a favor. You should have seen the builder agent's face when I said, 'Your credit-card debt is a lot more than mine!' Related: Here are the Moneyist's 5 worst dating stories What I find most inspiring and amazing about your letter is that, even when you were under pressure to sign these documents by someone you would normally trust, you refused to do so. Perhaps there were 'red flags' that put you on notice or, maybe you were taught to never sign something, anything, before reading it first. I don't know you and yet I am proud of you for what you did. Because it not only represents someone who refused to be hoodwinked by their spouse, it's also a shot in the arm for anyone who has made a bad decision under pressure from someone else: whether it's to sign a timeshare agreement, buy a car or switch electricity providers. They used the hallmarks of all con artists: time pressure (it must happen now), the age-old con (I am someone you like and we have built up a bond of trust), the suspension of disbelief (everything is OK as long as you sign it) and a vague threat (this is an uncomfortable situation and the best way to be free from that feeling is to sign). Don't miss: 'I'm an endless honey pot': My wife and I are in our 70s. We gave our son $40,000 for his L.A. wedding. Now he wants more. Like many scammers, your husband tried again with the divorce papers. Sometimes, people say these people who gain your trust are geniuses because they manage to convince you they are upstanding, charismatic individuals, and can sustain that over a long time. But they're not Albert Einstein or Warren Buffett. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to con their spouse. What's more, your ex-husband, like many phishing or confidence thieves, was a one-trick pony. His 'sign here' trick didn't work the first time, but he was devoid of any other ways to get his hands on your assets, so he merely tried the same method a second time. I only hope his next 'mark' will be as strong as you when put under such pressure. Beware of love bombers. They tell you what you want to hear. They promise you the world. They find out what you want: companionship, romance, stability, love, and they give it to you in spades until you are either hooked and/or (in your case) married. And then the payoff begins, and it won't end until you decide to walk out that door, just like you did. Don't miss: 'This woman destroyed my heart and soul': After my wife died, her mother turned on me — and presented me with a secret will Paul Colaianni, author of 'The Overwhelmed Brain,' writes on his blog about relationship con artists. He writes: 'Their stories are often the same: 'I felt like I met my soulmate. I was showered with compliments and gifts. We would talk about our future and I fell for him/her fast. We dated for a few months then moved in together. It was a dream come true. Then one day…'' 'The 'then one day' comment is usually the moment they saw their new partner's true colors. From there, their stories often sound like this: '…then one day, they got upset that I wanted to go see my mom for the weekend …then one day, they made a comment about my weight … then one day, they acted jealous that I wanted to spend time with my friends.'' 'They put you through a 'grooming' and 'conditioning' process,' he adds. 'You get groomed into loving and trusting someone that plans to turn against you after they know you are loyal to them. They make you believe they are kind, supportive, and loving. You get conditioned into believing that they are really there for you and have your best interest in mind.' Sometimes, signing a contract can be too easy, as you experienced with your divorce papers. This happened to another letter writer whose husband offered the house they lived in. However, due to his far greater salary, she would have thrown away a lot more money in terms of retirement funds and a house he claimed was in negative equity. Signing certain legal documents requires a witness, which your husband had provided, and they must be undertaken without coercion or undue influence, the signatories must have 'testamentary capacity' and be of sound mind. But it's much harder to successfully argue in court that you felt under pressure and didn't feel like you had time to read the contract. After reading a contract, as you are no doubt aware, you should always have your own attorney read and approve the contract; they should be someone you trust and who can answer all your questions. And if you are still not satisfied? Don't sign it. I hope others find your experience a cautionary tale. And good luck with all of your future pursuits. Previous columns by Quentin Fottrell: My husband will inherit $180K. I think we should invest the money. He wants to pay off his $168K mortgage. Who's right? My boyfriend of nearly 10 years is naming his elderly parents as beneficiaries and giving them power of attorney. Am I right to be upset? 'We have no prenuptial agreement': Will my wife be able to take my money if I transfer it to my retirement account? 'I'm not wildly wealthy, but I've done well': I'm 79 and have $3 million in assets. Should I set up 529 plans for my grandkids? The S&P 500 closes at 6,000 as bulls aim for return to record territory How do I make sure my son-in-law doesn't get his hands on my daughter's inheritance? Circle's stock is having another big day. What the blockbuster IPO has meant for other cryptocurrency plays. 'I was pushed out of her life when she was 18': My estranged daughter, 29, misuses drugs. Should I leave her my Roth IRA?
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Tesla shareholders face staggering new hurdle after company enacts controversial policy: 'A formidable barrier'
Tesla raised the bar for shareholders to sue the company board or executives for breach of fiduciary duties. The change took effect May 15 and requires an investor or group of investors to hold 3% of the electric vehicle maker's stock "to institute or maintain a derivative proceeding," CNBC reported. Tesla's market cap is $1.123 trillion, so a plaintiff would have to own shares worth $33.7 billion. "Obviously, for a company of Tesla's size, that would be a formidable barrier to anyone bringing a lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty," Tulane Law School's Ann Lipton told CNBC in an email. The change was enabled by a Texas law that "allows corporations to limit shareholder lawsuits against insiders for breach of fiduciary duty," the outlet added. With shareholder approval, Tesla moved its incorporation site from Delaware to the Lone Star State in June 2024. An investor who owned nine shares of Tesla stock sued the company in 2018, and CEO Elon Musk's $56 billion compensation package was revoked in January 2024. Musk is by far the richest person on the planet, and his wealth makes him nearly untouchable. He helped to pioneer the EV movement by becoming an early investor in Tesla in 2003, and the company has been known for innovative technology and industry-leading breakthroughs. Recently, however, the South African has drawn criticism for straying into American and European politics, including spending lavishly on the U.S. presidential election campaign of Donald Trump, leading government spending cuts as the head of the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, and supporting the far-right Alternative for Germany party. Activists have protested these actions, and Tesla charging stations, vehicles, and dealerships have been vandalized. Sales have plummeted, and Tesla stock spiraled downward, too, though it has regained much of its value. This upheaval and the larger perception change of Musk from groundbreaker to villain could stifle the uptake of EVs, which is one of the many things necessary to slow the rapid rise of global temperatures caused by the burning of fossil fuels for energy. It would take a massive coalition of shareholders to fight back against this move by Tesla, though companies are generally amenable to public pressure — especially when it comes to consumers' spending power. Tesla, for example, is shifting its focus from EV manufacturing to a robotaxi service and robotics to stabilize its future. Musk has a history of not delivering on outlandish promises, but it has not significantly slowed the company or deterred its supporters. What do you think of Tesla and Elon Musk? Elon is the man Love the company; hate the CEO I'm not a fan of either I don't have an opinion Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Associated Press
22-05-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Shareholder Alert: The Ademi Firm Investigates Whether Vigil Neuroscience Inc. Is Obtaining a Fair Price for Its Public Shareholders
MILWAUKEE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 22, 2025-- The Ademi Firm is investigating Vigil (Nasdaq: VIGL) for possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law in its transaction with Sanofi . Click here to learn how to join our investigation and obtain additional information or contact us at [email protected] or toll-free: 866-264-3995. There is no cost or obligation to you. In the transaction, shareholders of Vigil will receive $8.00 per share of common stock in cash. Vigil shareholders will also receive a non-tradeable contingent value right (CVR) entitling the holder to potentially receive an additional $2.00 per share in cash payable following the first commercial sale of VG-3927 if achieved within a specific period. The total equity value of the transaction, including the potential CVR payment, represents approximately $600 million on a fully diluted basis. Vigil insiders will receive substantial benefits as part of change of control arrangements. The transaction agreement unreasonably limits competing transactions for Vigil by imposing a significant penalty if Vigil accepts a competing bid. We are investigating the conduct of the Vigil board of directors, and whether they are fulfilling their fiduciary duties to all shareholders. We specialize in shareholder litigation involving buyouts, mergers, and individual shareholder rights. For more information, please feel free to call us. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. View source version on CONTACT: Ademi & Fruchter LLP Guri Ademi Toll Free: (866) 264-3995 Fax: (414) 482-8001 KEYWORD: UNITED STATES NORTH AMERICA WISCONSIN INDUSTRY KEYWORD: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT SOURCE: Ademi & Fruchter LLP Copyright Business Wire 2025. PUB: 05/22/2025 08:14 AM/DISC: 05/22/2025 08:13 AM
