Financial Adviser Books of Business, Up-Front Loans Can Be a Challenge in a Divorce
Cases where parties are self-employed, complex business cases, or even wage earner cases where a lack of documentation complicates the characterization of certain assets and debts can be trickier.
January 20, 2022 at 12:35 PM
8 minute read
After bounding the initial hurdles to getting parties divorced in a contested matter like, sorting out the date of separation, meeting the statutory waiting periods, and getting the case to the point where a hearing officer can make decisions about the apportionment of assets and debts, most cases are straightforward. The assets and debts are gathered and much of what is left for the hearing officer to do (or for the parties and their attorneys when settling) is to figure out the percentages to each party and the plan for implementation. Cases where parties are self-employed, complex business cases, or even wage earner cases where a lack of documentation complicates the characterization of certain assets and debts can be trickier. The biggest problems come when there may be legitimate questions about whether an asset actually exists or may exist in the future and, if it does, whether it is possible to divide it at all.
Such situations may come about when one of the spouses is a financial adviser. Often, when a financial adviser either chooses to stay at a current firm and renegotiate their compensation or, more commonly, when an adviser offers themselves out to multiple firms to see where they can get the best deal, the compensation at the new firm will of course include a salary but may also include up-front lump sum bonuses "repayable" over a course of years. Said "bonuses" are structured as loans and accompanied by promissory notes repayable in periodic forgiven amounts (typically monthly). The actual periodic repayment amounts may then be forgiven by the financial firm but are itemized on the adviser's pay advices so that taxes on the forgiven periodic amounts may be collected. The loans are only actually repayable should the advisor separate from the firm or otherwise break other covenants.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDefendant in Protection From Abuse Case Has Standing to File for Contempt
6 minute read$8M Settlement Reached in Wrongful Death, Negligence Suits Against Phila. Foster Agency
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 2Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 5KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250