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

[MrsThreadgoode]

I haven’t followed the Sherman’s case since thread two. So just to confirm it is a double murder?! Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, TPS has confirmed that it is a double murder that they continue to investigate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[human]

Sure, legally. But in its simplest form, the sale of Empire did snowball into the creation of Apotex. JMO.

Did that happen by itself? Or did that happen because of the efforts of BS?

If BS had been like KW, there would be no company and no money.

APOTEX did not automatically grow

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Thank you Lexi ... it gets a bit confusing, and what you have written is very helpful. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No, I think I got it wrong!

I thought the Winters were named Tim, Kerry, Jeffrey and Dana. Who is Paul?

ETA: His name is Paul T. Barkin, in the Toronto Life article they refer to him as 'Tim'. https://torontolife.com/from-the-archives/barry-sherman-bitter-pill-from-the-archives/

 

[human]

I think it stinks that some are making judgement on BS not handing these ingrates 20% of his business, just because he was the unlucky one whose offer to purchase Empire was chosen over the other offer when the trustees SOLD it on the open market. He should've just started his own company right then, instead of having the monkey of those 2 options on his back. The real problem is that the elder Winter never bothered to think ahead to look after his family by figuring out what would happen to his company in the event of his early demise, and how his kids would be taken care of.

Imagine if BS had NOT made an offer to purchase Empire, and the sale had instead gone through to the Montreal bidder. Would that bidder have had to sign an 'options' clause to look after the previous owner's kids several years into the future? I think not!

Empire was for sale on the open market, and just because BS happened to have a close personal relationship with the deceased, he became beholden to the 2 options. Meanwhile, he had to borrow money to buy it, and had his OWN intelligence with which to run such a business, which had zero to do with the orphans or his deceased uncle. It seems Empire actually required some brains to run the biz successfully - it had lost 20% of its annual revenues when run by the trustees before selling, but yet they chose NOT to allow BS to run it when he had offered to do so. Later it was listed on the open market, when BS paid MORE than the competitor. BS wasn't given any breaks or 'deals' because of his personal relationship with the deceased, he bought it fair and square, in fact paying MORE than the competitor was willing to pay.

Why should BS have been penalized like that? Without BS's offer, the other firm would have been the buyer for less money, and without such stipulations. That seems unfair right off the bat.

BS and his partner turned the company around to double its revenues within a few short years, attracting another company to want to buy it. They got an offer too good to pass up, and so they sold it to them. And along with the sale, went the 'options' requirement for the orphans. The orphans were still young at the time, so there was no question they hadn't met the requirements of the options.. and for all BS knew at the time, the orphans had been adopted into a loving family, as I don't believe he had contact with them at that time.

It was okay for the trustees/executors to make a business decision to sell the company they had been entrusted to look after... but it wasn't okay for BS to do the same with the company he paid for? The trustees got off the hook from being responsible for the orphans' future windfall, but BS was supposed to keep that obligation forever, even when he sold the company and no longer had anything to do with it? All because he happened to know the dead guy?

Who says any of the kids would have worked there in the first place, nevermind having been able to stick it out for minimum 2 years as 'responsible fulltime employees'? And wasn't it 5% per each orphan of the 'issued shares' - how many shares were 'issued', and what was the purchase price of the shares, and would the orphans have even have wanted to spend any money they had on making such a purchase by the time they met the requirements? At age 15 it seems KW started getting into trouble - and what would have been different if BS had not sold Empire? KW's and his brothers' issues don't seem to have anything to do with who owned Empire. BS selling or not selling, wasn't going to impact the family lives of the orphans, how they were being raised by their new family, their genes, or etc.

I got the impression that after selling Empire, BS remained on as an employee, but then was fired after 6 months. It was only then that BS made the decision to start up his own company, from scratch. He was good at it, and on it went to become what it became.

One way or another, at one time or another, by one party or another, Empire sold and no longer had anything to do with the orphans. The orphans presumably would have received the proceeds of the sale of Empire when the trustees sold it, the monies which BS paid for it, just as they would've received the proceeds from any other buyer, and that would've been it. But later, BS was said to have been like a 'bank' to the orphans, with KW's 'allowance' alone being up to $20,000/week at one point. He funded their businesses, bailed them out of trouble, tried to get them help when needed, bought them properties, funded their unsecured loans.

BS *was* being generous with them, even though not obligated to be, until the orphans got greedy and started thinking they were entitled to even more. Too bad for them that they didn't just continue to enjoy having a sugar daddy and become productive business owners, each in their individually chosen fields, with benefit of a great business mentor, instead of getting greedy, spending probably hundreds of thousands on legal fees dragging whoever they could through the courts, for years, trying to get more, and losing out on the generosity afforded them by one of Canada's wealthiest men. How many courts and judges will it take until they accept that their entitlement ended decades ago? Do they have any regrets in how they handled themselves? Did they already get their revenge?
[FONT="] “For me it isn’t about shekels, it’s about revenge!” [/FONT][/B][FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="][URL]https://torontolife.com/from-the-archives/barry-sherman-bitter-pill-from-the-archives/[/URL][/FONT]
[I]Goodman remembers being Sherman’s boss after his employer at the time, California-based ICN Pharmaceuticals, bought Empire from Sherman in the early 1970s. [B]After about six months, he was ordered to fire Sherman and reluctantly did so[/B].

[B]“I fired him. He would tell me later that was the best thing that ever happened to him,” said Goodman. “He says, ‘Don’t worry about it, Morris, I was planning to quit anyhow.’ And he started Apotex (in 1974).[/B][/I]
[FONT="]https://www.thestar.com/business/20...r-barry-sherman-will-be-tough-to-replace.html[/FONT]

Wow. You summed it up in the best explanation ever.

 

[dotr]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42864082
Feb 4 2018
rbbm. Indeed, who actually committed " the deed " ?

Apotex has been involved in more than a thousand court cases in Canada, using the legal system to aggressively challenge drug patents.

"It definitely makes it the most litigious pharma company in Canada and probably the most litigious company period," says University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran.

"It's fair to observe the way he did business he would have had many enemies," he says.

Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for generic drugs, and Attaran argues Sherman's business practices contributed to that.

"He was unethical in business. His drugs were overpriced and gouged Canadians," he said on Twitter.

In the 1990s, Apotex became embroiled in a high-profile and protracted dust-up with a haematologist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children over negative research results related to one of the company's drugs.

When the researcher, Dr Nancy Olivieri, said she needed to disclose the risk to patients involved in the trials, Apotex, which disputed the results, pulled the trials and threatened legal action if she divulged those potential risks.

She did anyway. Sherman was later recorded calling her "nuts" when discussing the case with CBS's 60 Minutes.

The bad blood spilled into the press again in the wake of Barry and Honey's death.

Rubin says while Barry was tough, he can't comprehend who would kill him and Honey with such "hatred".

"I can't believe that my friend Barry... would die in this horrible way," he said. "The riddle is - who did it and why?

"

 

[human]

A huge leap? One son is bi-polar, another died from drugs, another left home at 15 and was a drug addict. It speaks for itself. Mother made a big mistake handing them over to these two. End of story.

Mother may have been too sick to provide what an infant needs and the children suffered from attachment disorder. A sick parent can be a source for attachment issues. That means she could not answer their cries or she could not hold them.

There had been studies on attachment, but back then it was considered by many people that responding to infant cries are spoiling them. The study with monkeys and the bottle and the towel showed how important holding is. And there were the studies of children raised in orphanages. So information was out there but I do not think the general population was aware of how critical these things are to infants

 

[musicaljoke]

Sure, legally. But in its simplest form, the sale of Empire did snowball into the creation of Apotex. JMO.

When Empire was sold, teams of corporate lawyers and accountants hired by both the buyer and the seller, would have done examinations and statutory declarations to make sure there were no claims on the title, much like you have done when you buy or sell a house to show that you have a clear deed. If the cousins had any legal claims they would have been settled prior to the sale being finalised.

Otherwise, if we use the trail of assets approach as you suggest above, none of us would be free from the possibility that someone could make a claim on our businesses and properties.

 

[ilovepierre]

I haven’t followed the Sherman’s case since thread two. So just to confirm it is a double murder?! Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it's now been confirmed as a double murder.
As I have always thought all along.

 

[musicaljoke]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42864082
Feb 4 2018
rbbm. Indeed, who actually committed " the deed " ?

Apotex has been involved in more than a thousand court cases in Canada, using the legal system to aggressively challenge drug patents.

"It definitely makes it the most litigious pharma company in Canada and probably the most litigious company period," says University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran.

"It's fair to observe the way he did business he would have had many enemies," he says.

Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for generic drugs, and Attaran argues Sherman's business practices contributed to that.

"He was unethical in business. His drugs were overpriced and gouged Canadians," he said on Twitter.


"

If Apotex prices were indeed overpriced to the point that they gouged Canadians, then that would have opened up the market to their competitors. It's a very price sensitive market. We used quite a few Apotex products in our veterinary hospital because they were significantly cheaper than the same products offered by other companies.

Professor Attaran could be right that Apotex was litigious, but the company still kept their competitive edge.

 

[kay74]

Is it a coincidence having a lockbox put on and then these murders happen? We do not know if it was a burglary. An article was in one of the Toronto papers that said there house for sale and they were one of the richest people in Canada. That is scary. They should have had a security guard. Why is it they don't let the public know if it was a burglary? Wouldn't that benefit their neighbors too? Makes me wonder if they had not had their house for sale, if this ever would have happened.

 

[JDG]

Mother may have been too sick to provide what an infant needs and the children suffered from attachment disorder. A sick parent can be a source for attachment issues. That means she could not answer their cries or she could not hold them.

There had been studies on attachment, but back then it was considered by many people that responding to infant cries are spoiling them. The study with monkeys and the bottle and the towel showed how important holding is. And there were the studies of children raised in orphanages. So information was out there but I do not think the general population was aware of how critical these things are to infants

They have know about that for a good part of the last century. Possibly longer.

Failure to thrive and all that, when babies aren't held, cuddled and/or are neglected.

 

[Crosby87]

The family lived a very Jewish life. Not sure if BS was just giving lip service or what, either for/against G_d.

The son did remove his yarmulka while speaking of his father, however.

RBBM

What was the significance of that please.

 

[JDG]

Is it a coincidence having a lockbox put on and then these murders happen? We do not know if it was a burglary. An article was in one of the Toronto papers that said there house for sale and they were one of the richest people in Canada. That is scary. They should have had a security guard. Why is it they don't let the public know if it was a burglary? Wouldn't that benefit their neighbors too? Makes me wonder if they had not had their house for sale, if this ever would have happened.

No evidence of a robbery gone wrong. It was a double homicide, as per TPS.

There has been a lot on here about the Bridle Path robberies but that is a totally different neighbourhood.

Not far away but far enough. Shermans lived in Windfield Farms area.

 

[JDG]

If Apotex prices were indeed overpriced to the point that they gouged Canadians, then that would have opened up the market to their competitors. It's a very price sensitive market. We used quite a few Apotex products in our veterinary hospital because they were significantly cheaper than the same products offered by other companies.

Professor Attaran could be right that Apotex was litigious, but the company still kept their competitive edge.

Google 'do Canadians pay too much for generic drugs'. It will tell you the whole sordid story.

When it comes to a loaf of bread, its called price fixing. re: Loblaws et al.

BS was very well connected politically, helps oils the wheels, so to speak.

 

[minorone]

Has The Star got it wrong?

"On Dec. 6, Justice Hood ordered a $300,000 cost award against cousins Kerry Winter, Paul Barkin, Jeffrey Barkin and Julia Winter (she was representing her late husband, Dana Winter, in the suit)."

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...000-the-week-before-they-were-found-dead.html

Tim Winter, now a chef, never asked for help.

 

[Tortoise]

Tim Winter, now a chef, never asked for help.

That might be so but he was party to the lawsuit. Paul is Tim.

 

[ilovepierre]

RBBM

What was the significance of that please.

His father wasn't Jewish.
He removed the yarmulke out of respect for him.

IMO

 

[deugirtni]

That might be so but he was party to the lawsuit. Paul is Tim.

I see how they got to be Barkins, but how did Tim come to be Paul?

"Beverley’s rabbi found a home for the boys with Martin Barkin, a highly regarded urologist, and his wife, Carol, a schoolteacher."
https://torontolife.com/from-the-archives/barry-sherman-bitter-pill-from-the-archives/

 

[kay74]

No evidence of a robbery gone wrong. It was a double homicide, as per TPS.

There has been a lot on here about the Bridle Path robberies but that is a totally different neighbourhood.

Not far away but far enough. Shermans lived in Windfield Farms area.

I know it was double homicide! What we don't know is if anything was taken. Honey supposedly had a huge diamond collection. KW said that and could have said that to someone in a bar or whatever.

 

[minorone]

“But while often accurate, polygraphs are not foolproof, experts say. "Proponents will say the test is about 90 percent accurate. Critics will say it's about 70 percent accurate," said Frank Horvath of the American Polygraph Association.”

I also read that:
“Those who are unable to think of a lie related to the relevant question will automatically fail the test.”

When KW states that he passes the first one with flying colors, and then failed a following one - could the difference between the tests be because controlled question are used to establish a baseline. The subsequent tests following the set baseline, are when questions are introduced that determine psychological reaction.

Am I misunderstanding how they work.