Where is the info coming from when you say that KW's
father had put provisions in place that his kids would have jobs at age 21 and a 5% ownership of the company at 23. I have read that Royal Trust was selling the business, presumably because its sales had declined some 20% under their operation (
"sales had declined from more than $1 million a year in 1965 to about $800,000" - Toronto Life article). There was in fact a buyer who had offered almost 1/3 LESS than Barry's offer. Any stipulations were made only between RT and Barry, they were not pre-existing - they were part of the sales agreement when Barry bought Empire.
Had RT accepted the other offer instead, they would have in fact received almost 1/3 LESS money ($350,000 vs $450,000), and NO stipulations about the kids getting jobs well into the future, nor ownership. What then???
I have also read that the provisions which Barry DID agree to with RT, allowed for the kids to BUY into the company, only after working there successfully for a minimum of 2 years. (
"any employed child who worked two years with the company would “have the right to purchase five per cent of the issued shares of the company or companies owning the purchased business.” However, the option could be exercised only if Sherman, Ulster or Ulster’s father kept control of the business." - Toronto Life article).
[My sidenote: I wonder the cost of
purchasing per
issued share ? 'Purchasing' means 'buying',
as opposed to 'gifted'. It seems that Barry was making it clear that this 'stipulation' was not one of 'getting something for nothing'; they had to work there for a determined length of time before this purchase option became available, and then they would be able to BUY shares up to a pre-set maximum amount.]
This does
not mean the kids would each be 'handed' 5% of the value of the company (which they seem, according to MSM, to feel they are entitled to). This does
not mean the kids were simply entitled to 5% without ever having worked at the company. Barry went on to *sell* the company, and that agreement, however misconstrued by the orphans,
ceased to exist, period. And if Royal Trust was allowed to sell the company to whomever, then why would people entertain the notion that Barry was not at liberty to do the same at some point - at whichever point he so chose? Was he doomed to own that company for the rest of his life without being allowed to sell it if he wanted to?
Royal Trust sold the business - in my world, that means that whatever the proceeds of the sale were, those were the funds that the orphans were entitled to split and hold in their trust fund from their parents' estate until whatever age they were entitled to receive it.
How are these facts being missed, to instead see Barry as the big bad guy in their picture?
Quoted text from this article:
How Barry Sherman built his multibillion-dollar fortune