In an ongoing divorce case that’s been billed as New Jersey’s most expensive contested marriage breakdown, the wife, Laura Overdeck, is fighting to ensure she gets the business shares to which she believes she is entitled , as well as a fair financial settlement.

Laura and hedge fund billionaire John Overdeck married in 2002 without signing a prenuptial agreement. Now they are embroiled in a bitter dispute about the percentage of shares Laura will receive in Two Sigma Investments, the quantitative hedge fund John co-founded with David Siegel in 2001.

Sarah wants 35 per cent of the shares, which, according to her lawyers, are worth around $6.2 billion (£4.5 billion). However, John’s lawyers maintain that Laura’s stake should be around $4.9 billion (£3.6 billion). The parties cannot even agree on what has been offered. Laura’s side says she was offered $633 million (£464 million), while Johnclaims that the proposal was actually $723 million (£530 million), tax-free.

Now though, a surprising ruling at the latest hearing means that Laura cannot take the stand because she allegedly hacked John’s computer to take photographs of emails he exchanged with his lawyers, as well as breaking into his post office box and deleting evidence from her phone. 

The ruling, described by the Judge as the “ultimate sanction”, means that Laura will be unable to testify or call expert witnesses during the trial, although her lawyers will be able to cross-examine John on the evidence he gives. That said, the Judge also stressed that the couple’s assets still must be equitably distributed.

Commenting on the case, Roger Isaacs, Forensic Partner at Milsted Langdon, said that “The ruling highlights the difference between litigation in the US and in England where a witness would never be banned from giving evidence in these circumstances.

“Without forensic accountancy evidence it might be difficult to get the court to accept what was the historical value of Two Sigma’s at the start of the marriage thereby frustrating arguments about how much constituted marital property, given that the business existed before the wedding. 

He added, “The case demonstrates the need to ensure that evidence is obtained lawfully.  Many years ago in English litigation it was sometimes argued that if the party to a divorce discovered  undisclosed assets then the end (their discovery) would justify the means of discovering them even if those means included unlawful steps to obtain evidence. However, this is not been the case for many years.”

Source(s): International Business Times