Woman Whose Ex-Hedge Fund Husband Demanded A Cut Of Her Shoes Just Rubbing It In His Face At This Point

Back in June, hedge fund manager Daniel Shak sued his ex-wife, Beth, over assets he claimed she'd hid during the couple's divorce. Said assets were Beth's shoes, which Daniel alleged were kept in a "secret room" and were worth approximately $1 million, 35 percent of which he wanted. It was a bit unclear as to why he was going after the footwear collection three years after the two split (though using the proceeds to relaunch his fund was a possibility) but the heart wants what the heart wants. Anyway, today brings just a couple follow-ups on the Shaks, both of which are slightly more exciting for Beth than Dan. 1. He won't see a single pair of Loubs. A civil suit brought by poker professional Dan Shak against his ex-wife, fellow poker pro Beth Shak, regarding her extensive shoe collection was dismissed in a court in New York after Mr. Shak advised his attorneys that he didn’t want to pursue the issue any further...the opening arguments apparently doomed the case in the eyes of the male Shak. Ms. Shak testified to Judge Daniele that her shoe fetish grew as a response to repeated denials of emotional attention from Mr. Shak. “I would not call these shoes a collection, I would call them a sickness at a particular point in my life,” Beth Shak testified to Judge Daniele as she recounted how Dan Shak would refuse her attempts at romantic encounters, according to the Post. “I tried to get him to go to therapy with me, but it just didn’t work,” the Post quotes Ms. Shak as testifying. “I was so unhappy with my marriage that all I did was shop. There was nothing to our relationship…he and I had nothing.” Further into her testimony to the court, Ms. Shak stated that not only did Mr. Shak know about the shoes but even signed off on all the bills as they came before him. After a break following Ms. Shak’s testimony, Mr. Shak apparently had a change of heart regarding the lawsuit. His attorneys informed Judge Daniele that their client wanted to withdraw the case, which Judge Daniele quickly granted. Looking square at Mr. Shak as she dismissed the case, Judge Daniele is quoted by the Post as stating, “Well, thanks for wasting everybody’s time.” 2. She's going into the shoe business! Now that that the suit is over, Shak, who has an image of a pair of Louboutons tattooed just below her waist, is concentrating one what's next — the launch her own line of shoes. Dan Shak Drops Lawsuit Against Beth Shak Following Opening Arguments [PND] Sexy Singles 2012: Beth Shak [Philly]
Author:
Updated:
Original:

Back in June, hedge fund manager Daniel Shak sued his ex-wife, Beth, over assets he claimed she'd hid during the couple's divorce. Said assets were Beth's shoes, which Daniel alleged were kept in a "secret room" and were worth approximately $1 million, 35 percent of which he wanted. It was a bit unclear as to why he was going after the footwear collection three years after the two split (though using the proceeds to relaunch his fund was a possibility) but the heart wants what the heart wants. Anyway, today brings just a couple follow-ups on the Shaks, both of which are slightly more exciting for Beth than Dan.

1. He won't see a single pair of Loubs.

A civil suit brought by poker professional Dan Shak against his ex-wife, fellow poker pro Beth Shak, regarding her extensive shoe collection was dismissed in a court in New York after Mr. Shak advised his attorneys that he didn’t want to pursue the issue any further...the opening arguments apparently doomed the case in the eyes of the male Shak. Ms. Shak testified to Judge Daniele that her shoe fetish grew as a response to repeated denials of emotional attention from Mr. Shak. “I would not call these shoes a collection, I would call them a sickness at a particular point in my life,” Beth Shak testified to Judge Daniele as she recounted how Dan Shak would refuse her attempts at romantic encounters, according to the Post.

“I tried to get him to go to therapy with me, but it just didn’t work,” the Post quotes Ms. Shak as testifying. “I was so unhappy with my marriage that all I did was shop. There was nothing to our relationship…he and I had nothing.” Further into her testimony to the court, Ms. Shak stated that not only did Mr. Shak know about the shoes but even signed off on all the bills as they came before him. After a break following Ms. Shak’s testimony, Mr. Shak apparently had a change of heart regarding the lawsuit. His attorneys informed Judge Daniele that their client wanted to withdraw the case, which Judge Daniele quickly granted. Looking square at Mr. Shak as she dismissed the case, Judge Daniele is quoted by the Post as stating, “Well, thanks for wasting everybody’s time.”

2. She's going into the shoe business!

Now that that the suit is over, Shak, who has an image of a pair of Louboutons tattooed just below her waist, is concentrating one what's next — the launch her own line of shoes.

Dan Shak Drops Lawsuit Against Beth Shak Following Opening Arguments [PND]
Sexy Singles 2012: Beth Shak [Philly]

Related

Hedge Fund Manager Wants 35 Percent Of Ex-Wife's Shoe Collection For Reasons Not Entirely Clear

Daniel Shak is the founder of SHK Management, a hedge fund that reportedly "pulled the plug on its sole investment, spread trades on Comex gold futures," last year. Daniel Shak is also the ex-husband of Beth Shak, who he divorced three years ago and is now suing for allegedly hiding assets in an attempt to cheat him out of settlement money. The assets in question? Twelve hundred pairs of designer shoes, which Shak claims his former wife "hid" from him in a "secret room." The way DS sees it, the footwear collection, which includes "Christian Louboutins and other high-end designer shoes" is worth approximately $1 million and he wants at least 35 percent. The way Beth Shak sees it, this is crazy (“I’m shaking my head over this whole thing,” she told reporters. “He is saying he didn’t know the closet in our master bedroom existed") and she doesn't understand why her ex is going after her shoes now. At this time there appear to be a few possible explanations: a) Daniel is raising money to re-launch his fund (he told the Journal, after liquidating SHK in January 2011, that he'd be "trading again in a few weeks," though it's unclear if that happened). b) He's got gambling debts to repay ("A poker lover himself, he was reached at a card table yesterday but declined to comment"). c) He and John Mack are going to sell them out of the back of a truck. d) He just really appreciates women's shoes. e) Other Hedgie sues poker pro ex-wife over her 1,200-pair designer shoe collection [NYP] Related (...?): Hedge Fund SHK Liquidates, Rattles Gold Market

Yahoo! RésuméGate, Day 7: Third Point Is Not Enjoying This At All

In fact, Dan Loeb and Co. find this "embarrassing episode" painful to watch. Dear Board of Directors: Six days have passed since Yahoo! acknowledged the fabrications in Chief Executive Officer Scott Thompson and Director Patti Hart's resumes. Since then, the following has occurred: (i) shareholders have been told that Mr. Thompson's errors were "inadvertent", (ii) Mr. Thompson made a classic "I'm sorry you feel that way" non-apology without actually accepting responsibility, (iii) Ms. Hart announced she will not seek re-election to the Board presumably due to her leadership of the botched CEO hiring process but intends to serve out her term, and (iv) the Board has formed a special committee to conduct a "thorough review" into Mr. Thompson's academic credentials. It appears very clear to us – and to many corporate governance experts, Yahoo! employees, and fellow Yahoo! shareholders – that Mr. Thompson's fantasy degree was in no way an "inadvertent error". The evidence shows he had been using false credentials for years. Mr. Thompson's "apology" was clearly insufficient and it seems that the only thing he actually regrets is that he has been caught in a lie and publicly exposed. Without any explanation or accountability, Yahoo! has been left to flounder under a discredited leader for an undefined period. So, after six days, we must ask – what is this Board waiting for? It seems farcical to us that the Board will most likely spend more time deliberating over whether Mr. Thompson should be fired than it did properly vetting whether he should have been hired. The necessary investigation into whether certain senior executives and Board Members knew of Mr. Thompson's deceptions before hiring him should not delay decisive action over his ethical breaches. Third Point has over $1 billion invested in Yahoo! and we take no joy in witnessing this carnage. This Board's unchecked value destruction must stop once and for all. Therefore, we once again call upon the Board to immediately (i) place Third Point's entire slate on the Board replacing Mr. Thompson and Ms. Hart, (ii) appoint an interim CEO—we would suggest CFO Tim Morse or Head of Global Media Ross Levinsohn (assuming neither had any knowledge of Mr. Thompson's fabrications) and (iii) allow Third Point nominee Michael Wolf to Chair the Search Committee for a new permanent CEO (Mr. Wolf will waive the $15,000 fee that Ms. Hart received for her work as Head of the Search Committee last year, which we expect she will promptly disgorge). This is the only way for Yahoo! to move past this embarrassing episode. Sincerely, Daniel S. Loeb Chief Executive Officer Third Point LLC

Husband's Lack Of Interest In Recreating 50 Shades Of Grey Scenarios Straw That Broke The Camel's Back For British Banker

The couple is getting a quickie divorce that should be wrapped up shortly, if you know anyone both familiar with the plot lines and interested. The wife, a 41-year-old banker earning more than £400,000 a year, claims her husband’s ‘boring attitude’ to sex is evidence of ‘unreasonable behaviour’. In her grounds for divorce, filed at the High Court, she refers to the novel, which tells of the sadomasochistic affair between billionaire Christian Grey and naive student Anastasia Steele. The woman in the court case bought the raunchy book almost as soon as it was published last year and hoped it would encourage her husband to be more adventurous in bed. The wife’s solicitor, Amanda McAlister, a family law expert, believes the case is the first where the new phenomenon of ‘mummy porn’ has triggered a divorce. She said: ‘The woman had been reading the book and wanted to spice up her love life. ‘She thought their sex life had hit a rut – he never remembered Valentine’s Day and he never complimented her on her appearance. So she bought sexy underwear in an attempt to get her husband more involved. She said, “Let’s make things more interesting." ‘But when he still didn’t take any notice she told him he had a boring attitude to sex and she was fed up. ‘He went ballistic when he found out the name of the book she was reading and told her, “It’s all because you have been reading that bloody book”.’ The husband is admitting ‘unreasonable behaviour’ so the divorce can be granted quickly without a contested hearing in which his alleged low libido would be discussed in court. 50 Shades of Divorce: Wife 'inspired' by erotic book says husband failed to meet her expectations [DM] Fifty Shades Of Grey Leads Woman To Divorce Her Husband [NYDN]

Hotel Off The Hook For Hedge Fund Investor Relations Girl's Dance Of Near Death

Remember Christine Mancision? To recap, she's the hedge fund investor relations lady who, back in October 2009, sued both the Hyatt Morristown and James Graeber, for an incident that took place on the evening of November 22, 2008, that incident being Graeber approaching her on the dance floor of his sister's wedding, grabbing her arm, taking her for a spin, and then "flinging" her off to the side, causing Mancision to make a hard crash landing on her wrist, which was "bent the complete opposite way" when she stood up. Her injuries were so extensive that they required surgery, a metal plate and three screws (as well as "eight months of grueling rehabilitation") and while she blames Graeber first and foremost, she also believes the Hyatt played a part in overserving the guy when he was, she says, "visibly intoxicated," and therefore added "fuel to the fire" in Graeber's dancing feet. Unfortunately for Mancision, Judge Robert Sweet has ruled that while she can go after Graeber for what happened that night, she cannot collect damages from the hotel, because there is not enough evidence to prove that the Hyatt served her dancing partner alcohol "when he was in a visibly intoxicated state" or that he was drunk at all at any point during the ceremony or reception, a conclusion he came to in part based on: The fact that only one person claims Graeber missed walking his mom down the aisle because he was out getting bombed and lost track of time. At her deposition, Mancision described how Henige told her that he had heard from Beley that Graeber was late to the wedding ceremony because he had been drinking and missed being able to walk his mother down the aisle. Graeber disputes any allegation that he was late or that one of his duties at the wedding was to walk his mother down the aisle...Mary Beley née Graeber, the bride, and Beley, the groom, have stated that Graeber was not late to the wedding. The fact that Graeber was not overheard asking Mancision, "May I dave this hance?" nor was he seen knocking over three bridesmaids in an attempt to catch the bouquet or shouting "NEXT!" 10 seconds into each speech. Mary Beley née Graeber, the bride, and Beley, the groom, have stated that...at not time during the proceedings was his speech slurred or was the smell of alcohol detected on his breath and he was neither rowdy nor noisy nor were his eyes red. The fact that Graeber was not sent to bed early by the hotel staff, unlike some people. Emir Kobak, the Director of Banquets at the Hyatt, testified that Hyatt bartenders are trained to alert the Banquet Captain if a guest is having too many drinks, and that all bartenders attend alcohol awareness training every six months. Banquet Captain's Report reflects that Hyatt's policy as to excessive drinking was enforced at the wedding reception, that a female guest was cut off from the bar (and given water and coffee and was escorted to her room) and that the servers were directed not to serve shots notwithstanding some guests were requesting them. Some other details from that fateful night the judge threw in for our benefit: The suggestion there may have been some foot fetishists among the guests. Following dinner, Mancision and Henige, along with a few of his co-workers, proceeded to the dance floor where they danced in a group for about 15-20 minutes. Mancision was wearing shoes which had a 3-3.25 inch heel, although at least one witness descried the shoes as tall 4.5 inch stiletto shoes which were so "stunning" that they were a topic of conversation among guests. This: Graeber testified that, after he had been on the dance floor for about two songs, he and Holn were approached by a group of five to six women, including Mancision, who indicated by gestures and non-verbal conduct that they wanted to dance with Graeber and Holn. Mancision v. Hyatt Hotel Corporation et al - Document 57 [Justia] Earlier: Hedge Fund Investor Relations Girl’s Dance Of Near Death Cautionary Tale For Us All