Larry Bell to consider Selling???

She's pretty cute, I've never seen pictures of his kids before.

 

Ha! I love that the only comment so far is that Laura is cute...
That will make her day.

 

I'd love a few shares

 

Its more like he might be forced to sell rather than he's considering selling. He doesn't want to but he will if he has to.

 

You are around her age. Maybe you will have to work on your moves and start hanging out at Bell's more often!

 

I don't understand what is going on here. His trust already owns 53%, how does acquiring more shares help him leave the brewery to his daughter? Couldn't he transfer them right now? What would force him to sell to an outside buyer?

 

It sounds like the ~47% of stock is owned by people that do not want to sell their shares. It also sounds like a lawsuit was brought to court by former shareholders to settle, after Larry tried to manipulate shares and force the sale of them. It sounds like he's trying to do that again, and people who have money tied up in Bell's are uninterested in parting with their investment as of yet.

I'm not sure how the intracacies of stock transfers go, but if Larry died, and left his share of Bell's in Laura's (or whoever's) name, wouldn't she then have the same pull as Larry?

I'd probably want to hold on to my share's if I was an investor as well, Bell's is hugely profitable and the value of the business has only grown (and the economy seems to be picking up, which will only help).

Anyone from Wall St. have a take on this?

 

I think she's married. Pretty sure I remember a wedding ale at a pre-Great Taste party within the last few years.

I'm wondering if Larry's shares specifically say they are not transferable? Someone else might know how this works, but I know my husband's "shares" of a local brewpub aren't transferable. I think they go back to the "corporation" and can be purchased by other holders.

 

Actually you'd want somebody who practices the law in MI, not some guy on Wall St.

Sounds like this has as much to do w/ rights of survivorship (estate law) as business, which is why just a corporate/financial expertise person (even if in Michigan) might not be enough help.

Where did you get your information that Bell's is "hugely" profitable? My understanding is that breweries operate at very low profit margins.

 

It sounds like he's trying to transfer shares to her currently, and he is being stopped by investors. That is not related to estate law. I was just referring to a possible situation. Again, I'm not sure, but I'd think someone who's familiar with trading would have at least some insight into what may be holding this up.

I'd like to think Bell's is a reasonably successful business, as they recently constructed a $22 million brewing facility, and are renovating their Eccentric Cafe. They might not be as profitable as an insurance company, but very few things are. I'm sure Larry is taking in a very comfortable salary, by anyone's standards.

 

Some of that money might be going to the X' Mrs.

 

Spending $$ does not equate to being hugely profitable. Thousands of non profit organizations spend more than $22 million. . .well, thousands of for profit organizations have too w/o being 'hugely' profitable.

"Reasonably successful" and "hugely profitable" are different words and phrases because they communicate different things. I highly doubt Larry's salary is very comfortable compared to a few people out there. For some, its probably .01% of what they live on. Would Kanye & Kim Kardashian be cool living a Larry Bell lifestyle (and vice versa?)

He might not even make a 'salary' depending on how his business is structured. Certainly there are massive tax benefits to not receiving a 'salary' vs. capital gains, so its a very likely scenario. . .

If you look at my quote and read for content, I said it had "as much" to do w/ estate law as it did corporate/business, but the gist of my comment was that NY law (and federal to a lesser extent) probably aren't what you want to look at for a Michigan problem, regardless of the area of law (which I acknowleged was both) it pertains to.

 

First of all, people- read the article. Larry says "his goal is to pass Bell’s Brewery Inc. on to the next generation, but he hasn’t ruled out selling their shares if a resolution cannot be reached." He also says "I don't want to sell..." I admit, I got sucked into reading that article by the title too, then I read it and stopped worrying.

So, now that that fire has been put out we can address the corporate structure/estate things. Both are likely to be governed by Michigan law depending on where Bell's is incorporated. Many companies do incorporate in Delaware due to their pro-corporation laws. The problem is that those silly minority shareholders still have rights in the company- hence trying to buy out their shares. At which time, I would imagine LB would just transfer his ownership on death or what-have-you to Laura (who I went to high school with and is a really cool chick) and David.

So, long story short, there are way too many questions that the article doesn't ask to know what will really happen and can happen here. IF there is a non-transfer clause in the stock (which we don't know), it would be nigh-impossible to transfer shares on death. So, at that point the stocks would return to the corporation and would be available for sale. Without having access to the corporate docs there's no way to see how that sale can occur, and it would be folly to speculate on how that purchase can happen and to whom.

 

Larry has a couple of those.