Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #6

[musicaljoke]

... As for buying the company, do we know for sure that these clauses were only put in because it was BS?

Yes, we know, as a fact from the court documents, which have been posted here a few times now, that the offer was made by BS.

We also know, as a fact, that the offer was rejected by Royal Trust and that the clause DID NOT become part of the sale agreement.

The judge gave these findings:

[31] The plaintiffs argue that in order for Sherman’s actions to give rise to an ad hoc fiduciary duty, there must have been an Undertaking that resulted from a Commitment to Royal Trust. I find that Sherman did not make such a Commitment. There was, accordingly, no Undertaking, and Sherman owes no ad hoc fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.

[32] The plaintiffs argue that certain correspondence from Sherman created a Commitment to Royal Trust. I fail to see how any of it did. The letter written in November 25, 1965 was merely an offer to Royal Trust that was rejected. Without acceptance of the offer, there could be no legal Commitment from Sherman. The other correspondence, written around the time of the sale of the Empire Companies to S & U, was nothing more than a reiteration of Sherman’s position vis-à-vis the children as set out at paragraph 14.00 of the purchase agreement and again in the option agreement, which merely mirrored the wording in the purchase agreement.

[33] The correspondence cannot be elevated into something more. Sherman and S & U had set out in writing exactly what they were prepared to do for the children following the sale of the Empire Companies.

[34] I agree with Justice Perell’s analysis, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, that:

• There was never an entitlement to an option agreement (paragraph 119);
• Royal Trust attempted to have Sherman offer more but he refused to budge (paragraph 121);
• Sherman was under no obligation to offer employment opportunities to the children (paragraph 122);
• Sherman was only prepared to offer a limited, qualified, contingent and conditional employment contract and option agreement (paragraph 123);
• Sherman was asked to be more generous but would not budge (paragraph 123);
• The option agreement expressed precisely what had been agreed upon by the parties (paragraph 123);
• The children were acquiring a right for which they had no legal entitlement (paragraph 125).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...TaGVybWFuIGFuZCB3aW50ZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2

 

[musicaljoke]

Weird time to interview. What strategy do you think this is?

Interesting question! Perhaps it was simply a scheduling opportunity. Or perhaps it was a time when Winter would be tired and find it difficult to maintain a "story". Or perhaps it was the approximate time of the murder and as such, an optimal time to retrace Winter's steps on the night of the murder. What are your thoughts?

 

[AllyJane]

Interesting question! Perhaps it was simply a scheduling opportunity. Or perhaps it was a time when Winter would be tired and find it difficult to maintain a "story". Or perhaps it was the approximate time of the murder and as such, an optimal time to retrace Winter's steps on the night of the murder. What are your thoughts?

Probably a scheduling issue. LE work shifts, not 9-5 and KW works during the day and if he had another CA meeting then 9pm could be reasonable assuming that LE didn't expect the meeting to go 4 hours.

Do you think there is a reason why it wasn't Det Gomes who interviewed KW?
Also I wonder it KW had a lawyer with him. If the meeting went 4 hours, then I would doubt it. Most criminal defense lawyers would keep the conversation limited. For someone who supposedly wasn't a POI/Suspect, they sure spent a long time interviewing him.

 

[deugirtni]

Why would Greenspan risk being disbarred because deliberately causing a coverup of a crime will result in that.

KW has lied about never being in the house and admitted that he embellished about a great deal of his story. With the evidence that we know, why would you dispute that but believe someone who admitted not being truthful and failed a lie detector test he wanted to take.

Just wanted to point out, before I forget.. and apologies if someone else has already mentioned! In the Fifth Estate interview, KW says he has never been inside Old Colony. But in the same interview, around 16:09, referring to what KW said in regard to HS, the 5th Estate host says:
"He says she had some tough questions for him at their house one day."
Considering this point in time was sometime after BS came back into contact with the orphans, when BS already had Apo, it would suggest that HS/BS were living at Old Colony. So there's a contradiction/lie right there, during one show!

Also noticed during same show at 12:28, while again referring to HS, KW says, "no, I hated her too." People are wondering why HS would have been killed too? There you go.

 

[deugirtni]

Yes, we know, as a fact from the court documents, which have been posted here a few times now, that the offer was made by BS.

We also know, as a fact, that the offer was rejected by Royal Trust and that the clause DID NOT become part of the sale agreement.

The judge gave these findings:

[31] The plaintiffs argue that in order for Sherman’s actions to give rise to an ad hoc fiduciary duty, there must have been an Undertaking that resulted from a Commitment to Royal Trust. I find that Sherman did not make such a Commitment. There was, accordingly, no Undertaking, and Sherman owes no ad hoc fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.

[32] The plaintiffs argue that certain correspondence from Sherman created a Commitment to Royal Trust. I fail to see how any of it did. The letter written in November 25, 1965 was merely an offer to Royal Trust that was rejected. Without acceptance of the offer, there could be no legal Commitment from Sherman. The other correspondence, written around the time of the sale of the Empire Companies to S & U, was nothing more than a reiteration of Sherman’s position vis-à-vis the children as set out at paragraph 14.00 of the purchase agreement and again in the option agreement, which merely mirrored the wording in the purchase agreement.

[33] The correspondence cannot be elevated into something more. Sherman and S & U had set out in writing exactly what they were prepared to do for the children following the sale of the Empire Companies.

[34] I agree with Justice Perell’s analysis, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, that:

• There was never an entitlement to an option agreement (paragraph 119);
• Royal Trust attempted to have Sherman offer more but he refused to budge (paragraph 121);
• Sherman was under no obligation to offer employment opportunities to the children (paragraph 122);
• Sherman was only prepared to offer a limited, qualified, contingent and conditional employment contract and option agreement (paragraph 123);
• Sherman was asked to be more generous but would not budge (paragraph 123);
• The option agreement expressed precisely what had been agreed upon by the parties (paragraph 123);
• The children were acquiring a right for which they had no legal entitlement (paragraph 125).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...TaGVybWFuIGFuZCB3aW50ZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2

No offence, but I think you might be getting mixed up in the wordings.

There *was* an 'option' agreement as part of the purchase and sale agreement when BS bought Empire. It had stipulations attached. All 4 of the stipulations had to be met or no go.

This hearing was about whether BS had 'fiduciary duty' to the orphans. The orphans are trying to make something more out of different wordings at different times by BS, which were not part of the sale agreement, to make him have a fiduciary duty. Plus they wanted Barry's homegrown business to be considered a business purchased by Empire. There are a bunch of things wrong with what the orphans are trying to claim in their lawsuit. But there was definitely an 'options' agreement.

I believe the orphans' claim about duty, stems from when BS initially offered (to both BW and to RT) to "'run' the company and protect its value for the children":
[FONT=&quot] "He said that if she and the executors wished, he would take over the business and protect its value for the benefit of the children. [/FONT]
....
Three days after her death, Barry made the same proposal to trustees of the Winter estate. They said no, that they would continue to run the business. And so the children’s legacy—Empire Labs and a trust fund—remained in the hands of two lawyers, an accountant and Royal Trust."
(https://torontolife.com/from-the-archives/barry-sherman-bitter-pill-from-the-archives/)

Two years later, in 1967, when BS bought the business when it came on the market, he agreed to the options. The orphans were never 'entitled' to the 'options' for a number of reasons - BS didn't have control of Empire, Empire was sold, the orphans never worked at Empire for 2 years, etc. The judge said "The children were acquiring a right for which they had no legal entitlement (paragraph 125)", because they weren't old enough to work there and meet the stipulations.
etcetera

 

[Grey-St]

I always *try* to put myself in another's shoes and I do strive to be nonjudgmental. When I think about what BS, as a young guy who'd lost his dad at 9 or 10, might have felt like through all of this whole story, it certainly gives me a different perspective - possibly something closer to his perspective. I also keep in mind his particular personality, and what we know of it. In having some guesses into BS's perspective, it doesn't preclude also having sympathy for the 4 children. It does however, disturb me that such a family, with a prosperous business, 4 children, and a dying wife, could leave their 4 preschoolers without somewhere to go, with someone who loved them, and a person in place to at least run the business, should tragedy strike and take both parents.
Why *wouldn't* BS have felt jilted? He'd been entrusted by LW to take charge while he went on a last vacation with his dying wife, he'd been trained on running the business, the business required someone competent to run it, but yet they denied his offer to take care of it for a year or less, only because he asked for first right of refusal, *should* the company be sold in future. That is all he asked for. And why not? Then paying more than other arm's length bidders, he still got stuck with a clause to take care of people 15+ years into the future. Just seems unfair to me, and seems like through all of the tragic feelings surrounding everything else, BS's own feelings of loss and etc, were completely disregarded.
When you're purchasing a business, making an offer, paying more than JoeBlowNextGuy, the biz excites you, you're good at it, you can gather up the financing, you're even related to the owner who took you under his wing to train you - but you're treated differently than JoeBlow - wouldn't you wonder why? Everyone is heartbroken to hear about 4 young kids losing their parents, but no other buyer would have been asked, expected, or have agreed to such 'options', imho. Was the Montreal bidder selfish too, for not thinking about the previous owner's children's financial future while the estate is selling him the business?

That's a fair analysis. I too try to put myself in other people's shoes and remain non judgemental. But again, do we know for sure that these clauses were only put in because it was BS? Or would they have been put in regardless of who the buyer was? I haven't been able make that part clear yet, so I'm just wondering.

 

[deugirtni]

I do not think that was explained in the article I read. It did give the impression that BS would just pick a fight with the pastor. IMO

I got the impression that it wasn't picking a fight - and probably not even 'arguing', but rather, my take on it was that he was trying to have philosophical discussions with someone with totally opposite beliefs from his own. You know how people with opposite political views can have a 'discussion', but to others it may seem to be an 'argument'? Imho, it was just kind of unfortunate wording used in whatever article that was. Or I guess if one of the two discussers is perhaps unable to defend his view, he might claim 'argument/argumentative', just for not being agreed with at face value because it's mainstream? I know at least a couple of people who are up for a good discussion on belief-in-God vs Atheist views, and although such a discussion might become heated and passionate, it's not really 'arguing', more perhaps 'debating'? jmo.

 

[Grey-St]

Yes, we know, as a fact from the court documents, which have been posted here a few times now, that the offer was made by BS.

We also know, as a fact, that the offer was rejected by Royal Trust and that the clause DID NOT become part of the sale agreement.

The judge gave these findings:

[31] The plaintiffs argue that in order for Sherman’s actions to give rise to an ad hoc fiduciary duty, there must have been an Undertaking that resulted from a Commitment to Royal Trust. I find that Sherman did not make such a Commitment. There was, accordingly, no Undertaking, and Sherman owes no ad hoc fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.

[32] The plaintiffs argue that certain correspondence from Sherman created a Commitment to Royal Trust. I fail to see how any of it did. The letter written in November 25, 1965 was merely an offer to Royal Trust that was rejected. Without acceptance of the offer, there could be no legal Commitment from Sherman. The other correspondence, written around the time of the sale of the Empire Companies to S & U, was nothing more than a reiteration of Sherman’s position vis-à-vis the children as set out at paragraph 14.00 of the purchase agreement and again in the option agreement, which merely mirrored the wording in the purchase agreement.

[33] The correspondence cannot be elevated into something more. Sherman and S & U had set out in writing exactly what they were prepared to do for the children following the sale of the Empire Companies.

[34] I agree with Justice Perell’s analysis, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, that:

• There was never an entitlement to an option agreement (paragraph 119);
• Royal Trust attempted to have Sherman offer more but he refused to budge (paragraph 121);
• Sherman was under no obligation to offer employment opportunities to the children (paragraph 122);
• Sherman was only prepared to offer a limited, qualified, contingent and conditional employment contract and option agreement (paragraph 123);
• Sherman was asked to be more generous but would not budge (paragraph 123);
• The option agreement expressed precisely what had been agreed upon by the parties (paragraph 123);
• The children were acquiring a right for which they had no legal entitlement (paragraph 125).

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...TaGVybWFuIGFuZCB3aW50ZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2

Thanks for the follow up, musicaljoke. I'll take a closer look and try to make sense of it all .

 

[Grey-St]

No offence, but I think you might be getting mixed up in the wordings.

There *was* an 'option' agreement as part of the purchase and sale agreement when BS bought Empire. It had stipulations attached. All 4 of the stipulations had to be met or no go.

This hearing was about whether BS had 'fiduciary duty' to the orphans. The orphans are trying to make something more out of different wordings at different times by BS, which were not part of the sale agreement, to make him have a fiduciary duty. Plus they wanted Barry's homegrown business to be considered a business purchased by Empire. There are a bunch of things wrong with what the orphans are trying to claim in their lawsuit. But there was definitely an 'options' agreement.

I believe the orphans' claim about duty, stems from when BS initially offered (to both BW and to RT) to "'run' the company and protect its value for the children":
[FONT=&amp] "He said that if she and the executors wished, he would take over the business and protect its value for the benefit of the children. [/FONT]
....
Three days after her death, Barry made the same proposal to trustees of the Winter estate. They said no, that they would continue to run the business. And so the children’s legacy—Empire Labs and a trust fund—remained in the hands of two lawyers, an accountant and Royal Trust."
(https://torontolife.com/from-the-archives/barry-sherman-bitter-pill-from-the-archives/)

Two years later, in 1967, when BS bought the business when it came on the market, he agreed to the options. The orphans were never 'entitled' to the 'options' for a number of reasons - BS didn't have control of Empire, Empire was sold, the orphans never worked at Empire for 2 years, etc. The judge said "The children were acquiring a right for which they had no legal entitlement (paragraph 125)", because they weren't old enough to work there and meet the stipulations.
etcetera

I'm confused now! I'm just wondering if when selling/buying Empire, the clauses or stipulations re: the cousins, would be something anyone would have to adhere to, or was it just for BS? I hope I'm making sense .

 

[deugirtni]

That's a fair analysis. I too try to put myself in other people's shoes and remain non judgemental. But again, do we know for sure that these clauses were only put in because it was BS? Or would they have been put in regardless of who the buyer was? I haven't been able make that part clear yet, so I'm just wondering.

It would be impossible to sell a business with such shackles to anyone BUT BS.
For someone *buying* a business at fair market value - there's just not a chance any buyer would agree to terms like that. Someone mentioned that it was actually BS who initiated the 'options' in with his offer to purchase - I'm not sure where that info came from, but there were stipulations that went along with it, of which all had to be met. The judge said that RT tried to get even more from BS, but he wouldn't budge: "Royal Trust attempted to have Sherman offer more but he refused to budge (paragraph 121);" (from post up above)

 

[human]

Interesting question! Perhaps it was simply a scheduling opportunity. Or perhaps it was a time when Winter would be tired and find it difficult to maintain a "story". Or perhaps it was the approximate time of the murder and as such, an optimal time to retrace Winter's steps on the night of the murder. What are your thoughts?

I had no thoughts except to know LE has a plan when they interview people. Since this is a super weird time, there is a reason and a strategy. I like your ideas

 

[deugirtni]

I'm confused now! I'm just wondering if when selling/buying Empire, the clauses or stipulations re: the cousins, would be something anyone would have to adhere to, or was it just for BS? I hope I'm making sense .

Just BS (and any others who were listed as buyers on the agreement of purchase and sale of Empire). It was only pertaining to *that* particular agreement of purchase and sale.

 

[Breamworthy]

I agree regarding RT. But I don't know about BS feeling jilted regarding the company, I think that seems pretty selfish. LW had 4 young children and a wife to think about, that's where his money and business goes should anything happen to him. BS should be grateful for LW's care and mentorship. As for buying the company, do we know for sure that these clauses were only put in because it was BS?

I feel like there has been a lot of confusion on this issue. My understanding from documents posted a few times in the last week or so is that the clauses were in the original offer BS made to the trustees that was rejected. When he bought the company a few years later, the clauses were not part of the arrangement. At that point, the company was officially up for sale, and it was simply a matter of who offered the most money with no other restrictions.

EDIT: it seems like maybe this was inaccurate, and the option was there when he bought the company – just not enforceable because the criteria were never meant.

 

[Breamworthy]

Do you think there is a reason why it wasn't Det Gomes who interviewed KW?
Also I wonder it KW had a lawyer with him. If the meeting went 4 hours, then I would doubt it. Most criminal defense lawyers would keep the conversation limited. For someone who supposedly wasn't a POI/Suspect, they sure spent a long time interviewing him.

I can think of two reasons. First, he is pretty full of himself and they may not want to give him the satisfaction of being interviewed by the chief investigator. Second, it's pretty evident from his statements that KW has significant issues with women, and they may have thought he would be more open with male detectives. They can strike a "women, amirite?" tone with him that Det. Gomes might not.

 

[Grey-St]

I can think of two reasons. First, he is pretty full of himself and they may not want to give him the satisfaction of being interviewed by the chief investigator. Second, it's pretty evident from his statements that KW has significant issues with women, and they may have thought he would be more open with male detectives. They can strike a "women, amirite?" tone with him that Det. Gomes might not.

He also called Det. Gomes a "really bad liar" when she declared the case a double-homicide. That would make me want to interview him so badly, but I'm a nut!

 

[deugirtni]

The link is here:https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...yb3lhbCB0cnVzdCB3aW50ZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

"[13] When the Winters died, Sherman made an offer to Royal Trust in a letter dated November 25, 1965. He stated that he was “interested in purchasing all the assets of Louis and Beverly Winter relating to the pharmaceutical and chemical industries and am furthermore anxious to protect the value of the said assets for the benefit of the children of Louis and Beverly Winter”. He therefore proposed that he would “assume the position of General Manager of the pharmaceutical and chemical companies until January 31, 1966, in consideration of……the right of first refusal on the sale of the…..assets”, a salary, and the use of an automobile. His offer was open for one day. Royal Trust rejected the offer.

[14] The plaintiffs argue that this letter was a representation made to Royal Trust that Sherman would protect their future interests and that it was the start of what they argue was his Commitment and Undertaking giving rise to an ad hoc fiduciary duty owed to them.

[15] His offer rejected, Sherman continued with his studies. Royal Trust continued to run the Empire Companies. In 1967, however, Royal Trust decided to sell the Empire Companies’ business. The history of the sale is set out in Justice Perell’s decision at paragraphs 94 to 100 of his reasons; I will not repeat it here. Sherman and Joel Ulster’s offer of about $450,000 was the higher of the two offers, about $100,000 above the only other offer.

[16] The Sherman & Ulster offer also included an option for the Winters children to be employed by the purchased business and to acquire 5% of the shares of the company if employed for two years.

[17] The option had four pre-conditions attached; the opportunity of employment and subsequent acquisition of shares would only arise if all four pre-conditions were met. If any one of the conditions was not fulfilled at the point in time when the children were to have the opportunity of employment or share acquisition, Sherman’s obligations were to be null and void.

[18] Royal Trust had wanted stronger option terms that would have inhibited Sherman’s ability to resell the purchased business or take the Empire Companies public. Sherman refused such terms. As Justice Perell put it at paragraph 123 of his reasons:

Sherman was only prepared to offer a limited, qualified, contingent and conditional employment agreement and option agreement. He was asked to be more expansive and generous, but he would not be moved….Royal Trust did not leave any money on the negotiating table by negligently drafting the Option Agreement or by not squeezing Dr. Sherman to ensure that his promise extended to employment and an interest in any and every generic drug business in which he might become involved in the future."
....
[21] In 1974, Sherman founded Apotex, which is in the business of manufacturing and selling generic pharmaceuticals. As sworn by Sherman – and as found by Justice Perell and confirmed by the Court of Appeal – Apotex did not own or use any of the assets, goodwill, property or business of the Empire Companies. The definition of “purchased business” in the asset sale agreement of the Empire Companies and the option agreement does not apply to Apotex. At paragraph 157 of his reasons, Justice Perell found that “Apotex cannot be interpreted to be the “Purchased Business” under the Option Agreement……The Plaintiffs’ interpretation is wishful thinking beyond fanciful.”

[22] The plaintiffs’ claim against Sherman has gone through a number of revisions since it was first issued in 2007. The most recent version was amended on October 25, 2016. In it the plaintiffs plead that Sherman made a Commitment to Royal Trust to grow the Empire Companies for the benefit of the plaintiffs, as future shareholders and employees, which was one of the reasons Royal Trust agreed to sell the Empire Companies to Sherman and in order to provide some assurance that Sherman followed through on his Commitment, the option agreement was created.

[23] The plaintiffs then plead that in providing the Commitment to Royal Trust Sherman gave an Undertaking to the plaintiffs to act in their best interests and not to place his interests ahead of their own. This Undertaking gave rise to an ad hoc fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs which Sherman has breached.

[24] Sherman and Apotex are the focus of the plaintiffs’ complaints. There is no evidence of Joel Ulster being involved in any of the matters at issue. There is one reference to Myer F. Florence in Kerry Winter’s responding affidavit. The pleading makes very minimal reference to Ulster or Florence. The alleged Commitment and Undertaking were from Sherman and he, it is pleaded, is the ad hoc fiduciary.
....

[31] The plaintiffs argue that in order for Sherman’s actions to give rise to an ad hoc fiduciary duty, there must have been an Undertaking that resulted from a Commitment to Royal Trust. I find that Sherman did not make such a Commitment. There was, accordingly, no Undertaking, and Sherman owes no ad hoc fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.

[32] The plaintiffs argue that certain correspondence from Sherman created a Commitment to Royal Trust. I fail to see how any of it did. The letter written in November 25, 1965 was merely an offer to Royal Trust that was rejected. Without acceptance of the offer, there could be no legal Commitment from Sherman. The other correspondence, written around the time of the sale of the Empire Companies to S & U, was nothing more than a reiteration of Sherman’s position vis-à-vis the children as set out at paragraph 14.00 of the purchase agreement and again in the option agreement, which merely mirrored the wording in the purchase agreement.

[33] The correspondence cannot be elevated into something more. Sherman and S & U had set out in writing exactly what they were prepared to do for the children following the sale of the Empire Companies.

[34] I agree with Justice Perell’s analysis, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, that:
• There was never an entitlement to an option agreement (paragraph 119);
• Royal Trust attempted to have Sherman offer more but he refused to budge (paragraph 121);
• Sherman was under no obligation to offer employment opportunities to the children (paragraph 122);
• Sherman was only prepared to offer a limited, qualified, contingent and conditional employment contract and option agreement (paragraph 123);
• Sherman was asked to be more generous but would not budge (paragraph 123);
• The option agreement expressed precisely what had been agreed upon by the parties (paragraph 123);
• The children were acquiring a right for which they had no legal entitlement (paragraph 125)."

etcetera

 

[brightii]

deugirtni, your posts are phenomenal! I haven’t logged in for months but have been following this case from day one. I agree with your take on everything and appreciate all the time and effort you’ve invested to express what I simply could not.

Did you or anyone else here notice that during the Fifth Estate show, the camera zoomed in on KW’s left hand - seemingly inexplicably to me when I first watched it - but I viewed the show again tonight and I see what appears to be a deep discolouration on KW’s hand - possibly a bruise? It is at the 21:57 mark on the pvr version I taped. I may be wrong about what it suggests to me, but it got me thinking...

All MOO

 

[deugirtni]

deugirtni, your posts are phenomenal! I haven’t logged in for months but have been following this case from day one. I agree with your take on everything and appreciate all the time and effort you’ve invested to express what I simply could not.

Did you or anyone else here notice that during the Fifth Estate show, the camera zoomed in on KW’s left hand - seemingly inexplicably to me when I first watched it - but I viewed the show again tonight and I see what appears to be a deep discolouration on KW’s hand - possibly a bruise? It is at the 21:57 mark on the pvr version I taped. I may be wrong about what it suggests to me, but it got me thinking...

All MOO

Thanks, I do try, but I apologize that my posts are so wordy! I didn't notice KW's left hand.. on my version there's nothing like that at 21:57.. can you remember what he was talking about at that time? Might be able to find it better that way. Thx

 

[brightii]

Thanks, I do try, but I apologize that my posts are so wordy! I didn't notice KW's left hand.. on my version there's nothing like that at 21:57.. can you remember what he was talking about at that time? Might be able to find it better that way. Thx

Yes, KW was driving on the 401 - there was a sign saying Avenue Road. KW was talking about when he went to ask BS about how BS got his father's business. The camera zoomed in on KW's hand for a moment which I find odd and made me wonder why. The segment is right after there is an audio recording of BS speaking (deposition). I hope that helps.

All MOO.

 

[MizStery]

<snip>
Why *wouldn't* BS have felt jilted? He'd been entrusted by LW to take charge while he went on a last vacation with his dying wife, he'd been trained on running the business, the business required someone competent to run it, but yet they denied his offer to take care of it for a year or less, only because he asked for first right of refusal, *should* the company be sold in future. That is all he asked for. And why not? Then paying more than other arm's length bidders, he still got stuck with a clause to take care of people 15+ years into the future. Just seems unfair to me, and seems like through all of the tragic feelings surrounding everything else, BS's own feelings of loss and etc, were completely disregarded.

Thank-you so much for your post.

I highlighted a few of your points.I only bring this this up because I have sensed the undercurrent you articulated.

My mother was orphaned and brought up by a 2nd cousin. My mother's youngest foster sister was only 8 years older than myself. I loved all my aunts and uncles. There were circumstances like in the Sherman family. Shared animosity hard feelings toward my aunt as you discribe in your post. Even my sister gets hostile if I bring up my aunt.

I do not share the resentment that my family carries against her.

I have had a susuccesful life. I try to live with gratitude. Unbeknownst to my mom's family I persevered until I finally was able to talk to my aunt on the phone. She said my name and said I was always her baby girl. That was the only thing coherent she was able to say.

How can I with good conscience having been blessed with a comfortable life & good health carry a grudge against my aunt? Her life has been a struggle. To be sure she made some poor choices that contributed to her stress and struggle in life. But I could never abandon her.

To be sure several of the Winter brothers have made poor choices. They have destroyed their health.In fact their misfortunes just seem to teeter until pulmeting as the downward spiral steepens,

This is such a sad tragic set of circumstances.

To be sure deugirtni BS had every right to feel the way he did. But it reminds me of a Charles Dickens novel only after all the obstacles & struggles there is no happy ending for any any of the stories characters.

The sadness I feel for the children of both families scared & marred by the tragic loss of both mother and father.

This is my opinion, I realize there are many who post here that do not share my sentiments.
:cow: