I'm not sure anyone here can speak to this half-intelligently, but here is my question. The couple had been married for.. what? 45 years or something? And when they became married, they were of modest means. They had to take out loans from their family to get into business. Due to Barry's intelligence, risk-taking, hard work, whatever, he was able to grow that business and become a multi-billionaire.
In Canada we have family laws which, if I'm not mistaken, entitle the spouse to half of everything that grew during the marriage together.. so therefore, even though it may have been 'Barry's business', and it was Barry who worked in the business day-to-day, Honey is deemed to have contributed as well, and as far as I understand it, she would be entitled to half of everything.. after taxes and such. If H had divorced B, wouldn't B have had to cough up piles and piles of money to give her her 'half'? If most of the wealth was in Apo, and the value was so high, I'm assuming B would've been in a position where he would have to sell at least parts of it, in order to pay her out, if she demanded the monies, rather than the 'ownership'?
If someone is wealthy before they marry, it is perhaps common to have a prenup signed so that anything owned before the marriage, is not to be divided in a divorce, but everything gained after the marriage would be subject to sharing. That doesn't appear to have been the situation with B and H, as both of them were of relatively the same financial status at the time of marriage and neither seem to have come from wealthy parents themselves.
So what would happen if only H had been murdered? And in her Will, she left everything she owned to charity and her sibling? On paper, it might appear she only perhaps owned the property where their new home was being built, possibly she had some life insurance and a bit of cash, maybe a condo or two. In reality according to family law however, she owned half of everything. So how would her estate be distributed to her inheritors? Wouldn't that mean things would need to be sold in order to get the monies out, so they could be distributed as per her Will? And B would be left with his entire half, which is no small amount, but perhaps not enough to keep Apo going?
So if only H had been killed and the motive was to collect an inheritance, the starting point would be only half of their fortune, and then divided amongst whomever she bequeathed her wealth to? And same for if only B had been killed.
What if B had been killed for same reason, and he had only left monies for H to be looked after, with the rest going to his 4 children? What if H had an issue with that, and instead, wanted the cash? Couldn't she contest the Will to get 'her half' of the Sherman wealth? IF the couple were killed for their wealth, which seems it could be likely considering the substantial size of it, it only makes sense to me that both of them would need to go, in order to avoid all of that mess if only one were to die. It would take years to sort out in court, otherwise, imho.
Note that of course I am not versed in corporate law, taxation and loopholes for the wealthy, wealth, trust funds, and etc., nor an expert in family law, but I imagine that if during the course of the couple's 45 year marriage, B had been trying to work things so that H would be entitled to little, either if she divorced him, or if he or she died, H may have had an issue with that and took steps to stop it from happening, or.. perhaps that is what our laws are for, to stop that type of thing from happening even if the spouse is completely clueless about it?