Citadel Chief’s Wife Says He Bullied Her Into Signing Prenup Sep 3 2014 | 7:43am ET The gloves are off in the divorce battle between Kenneth Griffin and his wife of 11 years, with Anne Dias Griffin alleging that she was coerced into signing a prenuptial agreement and questioning the Citadel Investment Group founder’s interest in their three children. Dias Griffin, a former hedge fund manager herself, formally responded to Griffin’s divorce petition yesterday. She asked that their prenup be voided, accusing Griffin of using underhanded efforts to force her to sign, and for sole custody of their children. Dias Griffin told the court that she’d like to move back to New York, where she lived and ran her Aragon Global Management before marrying Griffin, with the children. Dias Griffin said that the prenup was “substantively unconscionable,” entitling her to just 1% of her husband’s $5.5 billion net worth, despite the fact that much of that wealth has accrued since their marriage. In addition, she said Griffin all-but-tricked her into signing it, only raising the matter shortly before their July 2003 wedding in Versailles, France, and failing to provide his financial details until three days before the nuptials. The same day, the two “argued intensely” about the proposed prenup, with Griffin becoming “so angry, violent and intimidating that he destroyed a piece of furniture.” Griffin then suggested that they see a psychologist—without informing Dias Griffin that he was already that doctor’s patient. “Anne was unduly influenced by Kenneth and the psychologist under the guise of a counseling session with a neutral psychologist,” Dias Griffin said. “Upon information and belief, Kenneth’s purpose for arranging the therapy session with Anne and the psychologist was to convince Anne to sign his agreement.” It worked: Dias Griffin said she signed the prenup hours before their rehearsal dinner, which came just a day before the wedding. Dias Griffin also asked the court for sole custody of their three children, aged two to six years, with Griffin getting only “reasonable visitation” rights. She alleges that her husband has “expressed little interest” in the care of their children, while she gave up her career to raise them. According to Dias Griffin, the Citadel chief moved out of their home more than two years ago, when she was pregnant with their third child—Griffin, in his divorce petition, said it was about a year. She added that his filing came as a surprise to her and was done as she was en route to the airport with their children, and that Griffin removed artworks and furniture from their home during her absence. Griffin’s lawyers called Dias Griffin’s allegations “salacious and simply untrue,” and said that their client was “respond to Anne’s allegations on the merits.” “It is sad that Anne continues to make inflammatory statements purely for her own gain, and in an effort to attract publicity to what should be a private matter.” Griffin has also sought the court’s help, on Friday seeking the appointment of a “children’s representative” and “temporary parenting schedule.” Dias Griffin’s lawyers said their client was again taken by surprise, as “he agreed the day before to work with a mediator to resolve issues surrounding visitation instead of going to court.”
e Griffins Trade Accusations In Divorce Oct 6 2014 | 12:10pm ET Citadel Investment Group founder Kenneth Griffin effectively paid his estranged wife to marry him, he said in their divorce proceedings. In a court filing, Griffin said a 2003 prenuptial agreement saw Anne Dias Griffin receive $25 million up front and $1 million per year for each year of the marriage. All told, the hedge-fund honcho said, he’s made $37 million in cash payments to Dias Griffin. She also got half of their Chicago apartment. “The agreement’s terms were not only fair, but extraordinarily favorable to Anne, providing her financial security from the moment she was married,” the filing said. It also denied Dias Griffin’s allegations that she was coerced into signing the prenup, noting that it was negotiated “with the assistance of three prominent law firms.” Dias Griffin is seeking to have the prenup, which entitles her to just 1% of Griffin’s $5.5 billion fortune, invalidated. She also wants full custody of their three children and permission to move them to New York, where she lived and ran her own hedge fund before marrying Griffin. Griffin opposes the custody bid, asking the court to impose joint custody and to bar Dias Griffin from removing the children from Chicago. In her own filing, Dias Griffin said that her husband had banned her from their homes in New York, Miami, Colorado and Hawaii, and that he threatened to demolish part of their Chicago home. In addition, she said, he unilaterally closed their charitable foundation. “Anne Dias Griffin and her attorneys remain focused on resolving this unfortunate situation in a manner that is in the best interests of the Griffins’ three children,” Dias Griffin’s spokesman said. “She stands by her response to the divorce proceedings filed by Mr. Griffin and earnestly hopes this matter can be resolved outside of court, but Mr. Griffin’s actions are making that increasingly unlikely.”
I don't get why the courts can seem to understand that a prenup is a contrct and except in extraordinary circumstances can't be modified without the consent of both parties. It's a freakin' no-brainer!
I think it's because the contracts are often old and circumstances in marriages and lives change drastically overtime. And I also believe that contracts are often signed under some kind of duress as both parties have emotional attachments to each other.
My guess is that her arguement that she signed the pre-nup under duress won't hold water because a judge would likely find that she certainly had access to ( could financially afford ) an attorney before she signed the contract. The other affirmative action legal in Illinois to void a pre-nup would be if Mr. Griffin did not disclose to her the full and complete extent of his pre-marital property to her before the pre-nup was signed by both parties. Publicly embarrassing parties is a time-honored method to extort a sweeter financial settlement. Neither party likely wants a trial - but divorces are just nasty poison. Never heard anyone proclaim they had an enjoyable divorce.