Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Conseco Insurance (CNO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (1564)	7/5/2000 1:09:29 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4155

Part I :Lorna J. Wendt v. Gary C. Wendt ct-divorce.com complete divorce proceedings This the Wendt's divorce proceedings public record. The parts that I think are interesting from CNC's viewpoint are the following: . . . Mrs. Wendt: ". The plaintiff characterized her husband as a very honestperson who believed that his new boss was not trustworthy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The defendant was transferred from one division of GECS to another, increasing his responsibilities. Each of the divisions were in some sort of trouble prior to the defendant's new assignment. The defendant was successful in rescuing the troubled divisions. This increased his prominence in GE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A number of witnesses testified concerning the defendant's business skills. The defendant is generally known as a deal maker. For example, the defendant was concerned about lending to Tiffany's,a premiere jewelry store. For the first time in the lending industry, GE loaned money secured by the name of the business. The intangible name, Tiffany, became an asset that could be loaned against. This new lending technique was developed by the defendant and has now become common in the lending field. A number of witnesses stated that the defendant's creation of leveraged buy-outs was the seminal event in the industry. It was widely publicized that GECS had done this transaction. As a result, GECS became a leader in leveraged buy-out transactions. This witness felt that Gary Wendt had an incredible depth of understanding of each and every business transaction including speculative credit matters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ As to the defendant's contribution to GECS, a witness testified that "he earned what he was paid, even though he was well compensated." The defendant claims that the success of GECS is attributable to everybody who worked for GECS. The court concludes that the defendant made the most substantial contributions of all of its employees to GECS's success. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A French representative of GECS testified that the defendant had quite a lot to do with every deal in that: (1) he knew the details, (2) he thought very rapidly, (3) he looked at the strategic side and was insightful, and (4) he could identify the leverage and the opportunity in the deal. He characterized the defendant as a "deal maker." "That's how GECS was successful, he made deals." . . .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A witness, a former GECS executive until 1995, testified that as CEO he exceeds the bounds of leadership. The defendant was a visionary. The defendant was able to determine trends. He developed a strategic plan to put GECS into the marketplace so that GECS continued to grow. The defendant is a leader of all people, and is results oriented. According to this witness, this resulted in an average annual growth for GECS of 20% per year over a consistent ten year period with a 20% return on equity for those same ten years. The defendant was capable of speaking at meetings for over an hour without notesand was an excellent motivator of people, setting goals and strategies, and obtaining results from all his high executives. The defendant's management style was not hands on. The defendant did not micromanage GECS. The defendant allowed his junior executives to perform on their own. The defendant had a good sense of humor. The witness said he was easy to work with in this highly charged atmosphere. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1978 the defendant became the head of the larger Leasing and Industrial Loan Department. The defendant became involved in complex airplane leasing and other leveraged transactions. In 1981 the defendant was appointed manager of Commercial and Industrial Loans. The 1981 tax code change was good for business. After 1981, leasing was used to create tax benefits. The defendant was successful. The defendant then started to look for companies that managed assets and not just companies that were interested only in borrowing money from GECS. The defendant testified that "when you make money at GE, you get noticed." In 1984, he was promoted to Chief Operating Officer of GECS. In 1985, the defendant became President and Chief Executive Officer of GE Capital Services, Inc. . . .------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . The defendant testified that the plaintiff was a good mother and a good wife. The plaintiff traveled with the defendant on a small number of business trips, however, only when she wanted to. These were a small percentage of the defendant's business trips. The plaintiff would always travel on the Pinnacle Club trips. The defendant's testimony did not denigrate any of the positive efforts the plaintiff made for the betterment of the Wendt family. The defendant acknowledged that she was a good mother and a good wife.The defendant was only commenting that she made little, if any, efforts that are attributable to the success of GECS. . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ten page business summary is fact intensive and is couched in language which assumes prior knowledge of sophisticated foreign financial markets. At no time did the plaintiff offer any testimony to convince this court that she had any intimate knowledge of the "deals." Even a cursory reading of Exhibit 49 could not possibly make the reader conversant with the terms of the "deal." Despite offering at least a dozen exhibits relating to business trips in which the plaintiff participated, there was no testimony from any witness, including the plaintiff, of her knowledge of the business conducted on the trip. A number of post travel thank you letters were offered. Each one was addressed to the plaintiff and the defendant at GECS headquarters. The plaintiff offered these letters to show that she was involved in the transactions, but in fact they proved the opposite. The plaintiff also believed that as part of her duties she had to be familiar with Business Week, Fortune and The Wall Street Journal. The plaintiff also read corporate annual statements. There was no testimony to indicate with what frequency she read business publications. The plaintiff did not testify as to any specific facts gleaned from those sources. There was no indication from these documents whatsoever that the plaintiff negotiated the deals, assisted with the negotiations of the deals or furnished ideas for the betterment of GE. There was every indication that she was knowledgeable about the countries, knowledgeable about the people she was going to meet, the local GE employees and clients's families, and had sufficient knowledge of the business deals to be able to participate in a conversation. . . . . TA . ===================================================================================================