It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by feelingconnected
reply to post by BlueNose
No, not aware that fosters is the beer to be drunk here !!! :p, I think it was produced as a beer to be marketed overseas.
Maybe some auzzies drink it, I don't know anyone that does.edit on 30-8-2012 by feelingconnected because: (no reason given)
originally posted by ollncasino
Indeed, it would be interesting to speculate how successful Gina Rinehart would have been finding her first job if she hadn't had a billionaire father and hadn't subsequently ridden the wave of China buying up Australian minerals.
Gina’s father, Lang Hancock, created a trust for his four grandchildren prior to his departure from this world in 1992 and left the trust in the children’s names. This breaking news story has come to light after an Australian court lifted the gag order which resulted in the release of court documents pertaining to the family’s financial feud. This comes after Rinehart’s attempts to suppress the story were rejected. The suit filed by the children alleges that Gina Rinehart warned her children that they would be liable to pay $142 million in capital gains tax, which would bankrupt them, unless they appointed her trustee. She then allocated less than one business day for the children to make their final decision regarding the matter. After which point Rinehart threatened “not to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries unless the beneficiaries signed a deed that contained such terms.” Eventually, the children signed an agreement which extended their mother’s control of the trust until the year 2068. At which point, Gina Rinehart would be 114 years old and the youngest of the three children involved in the lawsuit would be 83.
Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by jeantherapy
I wish i could put the bitch in my predicament for a month, i bet she would starve to death!
Originally posted by ABNARTY
Obviously it must be her brilliance and tenacity to make money with other people's money...I guess a better question is to ask how come she has not turned her inherited fortune in something even bigger than what she has?
Originally posted by CALGARIAN
Originally posted by ABNARTY
Australia's richest person.
Yes, but she's also the WORLDS RICHEST FEMALE, surpassing Oprah by a few BILLION. (with a B)
You think she's spend 8$ on better Shampoo...