I am SO confused. I believe that when people are married, and during the time of that marriage, one of them works everyday at building an empire, the value is shared, as per the Family Law Act - at least the difference between the value at time of marriage and the value at time of death?
But it has been said that Barry and Honey borrowed funds from different family members, so it seems there was not much 'value' prior to the marriage, and I believe any real growth in Apotex value came during their marriage.
I can see how Barry would want to protect his 'heirs', if he died first, by only giving H an allowance of sorts, to include all of the 'income', but none of the 'assets', while meanwhile, the actual assets were managed by the Apo trustees.. ie H didn't just inherit everything, which would potentially allow her to marry someone new, sell everything, and leave all of her money to her new mate when she died, rather than her kids.
Not saying that would've ever happened, but seems B was preventing that as even a possibility. But I'm not understanding why H wouldn't have been entitled to the same wealth/assets upon Barry's death, as she would have been had they instead divorced.
And if he had died while she remained living, she could have contested that.. but I believe it would need to be contested in order for it to be changed to equal assets.. but as it stands, she is not alive to contest it, .... can anyone follow my lame attempt to explain what I'm talking about? If they were deemed to share equally in their assets gained during their marriage, but they may have individually had separate and different ideas about how they wanted to distribute their estates upon their respective deaths, that could make quite a substantial difference to perhaps many things/people.
It is inconceivable to me that H really had no will and died intestate. It also seems scary to me somehow, that JK is no longer an executor/trustee of B's estate. imo.