Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Raoul Felder

Aired September 21, 2002 - 12:45   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: For Jack Welch, being the head of GE certainly brought good things to life. While he's still a wealthy man, his retirement days are now somewhat dominated by a bitter divorce. The judge presiding over the case has ordered both sides to resubmit financial statements, affidavits. Court documents say Welch was giving his ex-wife Jane $35,000 a month, including $3,100 for gifts, $7,500 for clothing, more than $8,000 for wine, nearly $10,000 for an office and $20,000 for travel. She had been asking for twice that amount.
The case also raises the controversy over CEO compensation to a new level, and how much a spouse deserves in a divorce. With us to discuss the Welch case is well-known divorce attorney Raoul Felder. He is joining us from our New York studio.

Mr. Felder, thanks for being with us.

RAOUL FELDER, DIVORCE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

SAN MIGUEL: You know, instead of the media talking about how much she might deserve in this case, how much she was responsible for his success, all we have been talking about for the past two weeks are the perks he that got that shareholders approved, perks that he's going to be getting for the rest of his life. As a defense attorney, and as a tactic that you might use in something like this, what do you think of that?

FELDER: Well, I mean, it's there and the court is going to consider that, that's income like any other income, except it's in kind. And that's the dirty little underside of American corporate life and it comes out. And I think Mr. Welch's lawyer, in my opinion, made a little bit of a mistake. They should have settled this thing quickly before this sort of thing came out.

Because, you know, he's given back, now he's renounced these various perks. But the divorce judge is not sitting as a moral arbiter of American business. So, the divorce judge is going to say, hey, wit a minute you gave it up, that's well and good. The divorce case started, we're going to add that back in. Now, Mr. Welch may find himself in the unenviable position of paying monies on monies he doesn't even have, or has given back.

SAN MIGUEL: What is the significance of the judge in the case asking for a new affidavits on both sides, in particular for Mrs. Welch, the assets, liabilities, and income and expenses only. And it cannot include opinion or characterizations about the couple's lifestyle? What does that say for her case?

FELDER: Well, it sounds like the lawyer just was very eager and wanted to get these punches in. When you give your needs, net worth, whatever it is, you don't editorialize. And apparently she did. And she went in with all kinds of teeth (ph). But it really doesn't mean anything. It means there's a serious judge who wants to consider it, and doesn't want to hear any of this stuff, wants to look at the numbers. That's not particularly good for Mr. Welch. You see, it sort of penalizes Mrs. Welch at first blush, but Mr. Welch now, knows he has a judge who couldn't care less, he's going to look at the hard numbers.

SAN MIGUEL: We have just about a minute left here. I mean, we've been sitting here talking about dividing up, you know, apartments overlooking Central Park and $8,000 a month for wine. For folks in -- who live west of the Hudson River, live in middle America, who may be arguing over $30,000 a year or something like that, or -- you know, much, much smaller assets -- what does this case have to say to them? How is it relevant to them?

FELDER: You know, it's people east of the Hudson River are saying the same thing, it's relevant to them because the law is equal. You know, when we came to the piece, you used the words, "people saying what she deserves". Well, that's not the test in America. It's what you deserve. It's not some husband with lots of money just doling out the money. It's what the law says. And the law is the same for the Colonel's lady and Rosy O'Grady. It's the same thing. If it's going to be 50/50, it doesn't matter if you have a lot of money.

SAN MIGUEL: It's still just about the dissolution of a marriage. And on that note, we will have to leave it. Raoul Felder, well-known divorce attorney, joining us from New York.

Thank you for your time today.

FELDER: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired September 21, 2002 - 12:45   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: For Jack Welch, being the head of GE certainly brought good things to life. While he's still a wealthy man, his retirement days are now somewhat dominated by a bitter divorce. The judge presiding over the case has ordered both sides to resubmit financial statements, affidavits. Court documents say Welch was giving his ex-wife Jane $35,000 a month, including $3,100 for gifts, $7,500 for clothing, more than $8,000 for wine, nearly $10,000 for an office and $20,000 for travel. She had been asking for twice that amount.
The case also raises the controversy over CEO compensation to a new level, and how much a spouse deserves in a divorce. With us to discuss the Welch case is well-known divorce attorney Raoul Felder. He is joining us from our New York studio.

Mr. Felder, thanks for being with us.

RAOUL FELDER, DIVORCE ATTORNEY: Thank you.

SAN MIGUEL: You know, instead of the media talking about how much she might deserve in this case, how much she was responsible for his success, all we have been talking about for the past two weeks are the perks he that got that shareholders approved, perks that he's going to be getting for the rest of his life. As a defense attorney, and as a tactic that you might use in something like this, what do you think of that?

FELDER: Well, I mean, it's there and the court is going to consider that, that's income like any other income, except it's in kind. And that's the dirty little underside of American corporate life and it comes out. And I think Mr. Welch's lawyer, in my opinion, made a little bit of a mistake. They should have settled this thing quickly before this sort of thing came out.

Because, you know, he's given back, now he's renounced these various perks. But the divorce judge is not sitting as a moral arbiter of American business. So, the divorce judge is going to say, hey, wit a minute you gave it up, that's well and good. The divorce case started, we're going to add that back in. Now, Mr. Welch may find himself in the unenviable position of paying monies on monies he doesn't even have, or has given back.

SAN MIGUEL: What is the significance of the judge in the case asking for a new affidavits on both sides, in particular for Mrs. Welch, the assets, liabilities, and income and expenses only. And it cannot include opinion or characterizations about the couple's lifestyle? What does that say for her case?

FELDER: Well, it sounds like the lawyer just was very eager and wanted to get these punches in. When you give your needs, net worth, whatever it is, you don't editorialize. And apparently she did. And she went in with all kinds of teeth (ph). But it really doesn't mean anything. It means there's a serious judge who wants to consider it, and doesn't want to hear any of this stuff, wants to look at the numbers. That's not particularly good for Mr. Welch. You see, it sort of penalizes Mrs. Welch at first blush, but Mr. Welch now, knows he has a judge who couldn't care less, he's going to look at the hard numbers.

SAN MIGUEL: We have just about a minute left here. I mean, we've been sitting here talking about dividing up, you know, apartments overlooking Central Park and $8,000 a month for wine. For folks in -- who live west of the Hudson River, live in middle America, who may be arguing over $30,000 a year or something like that, or -- you know, much, much smaller assets -- what does this case have to say to them? How is it relevant to them?

FELDER: You know, it's people east of the Hudson River are saying the same thing, it's relevant to them because the law is equal. You know, when we came to the piece, you used the words, "people saying what she deserves". Well, that's not the test in America. It's what you deserve. It's not some husband with lots of money just doling out the money. It's what the law says. And the law is the same for the Colonel's lady and Rosy O'Grady. It's the same thing. If it's going to be 50/50, it doesn't matter if you have a lot of money.

SAN MIGUEL: It's still just about the dissolution of a marriage. And on that note, we will have to leave it. Raoul Felder, well-known divorce attorney, joining us from New York.

Thank you for your time today.

FELDER: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com