Let’s Play Family Feud

By DeusExMacintosh

(the Rinehart way)

Details of the family feud between Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, and her three oldest children have been reported after a court rejected her bid for privacy.

Her children claim the billionaire threatened them with bankruptcy if they did not give her full control of the multi-billion-dollar family trust, according to court documents.

Ms Rinehart said they were not suited to become trustees for “many reasons”.

The lawsuit was filed on 5 September.

The dispute revolves around the Hope Margaret Hancock trust set up by Lang Hancock, Ms Rinehart’s father, for her four children.

John Hancock, Bianca Rinehart and Hope Welker want to replace their 58-year-old mother as trustee. Their youngest sister, Ginia, has sided with their mother, saying that the case filed by her siblings “is motivated entirely by greed”.

For months, Ms Rinehart has tried to keep the details private, but a court rejected her request last week.

BBC News

10 Comments

  1. kvd
    Posted March 14, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    DEM I thought Jules Verne had already pegged out a claim there? Anyway, that last pic with the sailor suits: it reminds me of Hong Kong for some reason. Can you tell from the original?

  2. Movius
    Posted March 14, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    This is the second worst Family Feud ever.

    (the worst)

  3. Posted March 14, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    There is nothing quite like dirty laundry on this scale…

  4. Fxh
    Posted March 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Any estimation as to what this spectacle , all about tax avoidance, one way or the other, is costing us actual taxpayers? As in supreme court costs etc.

  5. Posted March 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    Can’t tell KVD but Hong Kong was also my assumption. It may have appeared in Australian Resources & Investment Magazine sometime last year. I nabbed it from JoNova.

  6. Posted March 15, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    The rational one seems to be the younger daughter. Mum has clearly a better touch than Grandfather, why not leave it with her?

  7. Posted March 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    LE

    S v V doesn’t apply because GR is herself a beneficiary as to about 17% (or some such number).

    L:

    Question of the trust is separate to management of Hancock Prospecting. Basic proposition is that the 3 older children are sick of being subjected to GR’s use of her power of appointment. If the trust is broken up or they get control of it, at least they move up the ladder to being minority shareholders in Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited.

  8. Posted March 16, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    M & LE: That does make more sense.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*