> instead of passing the company to his sons he gives control to the chief of strategy who has been with the company for decades There are two issues here: the

> instead of passing the company to his sons he gives control to the chief of strategy who has been with the company for decades There are two issues here: the wealth and the control of the company. I don't think it would have been terribly noteworthy if he'd split up his ownership. He could have given his ex-girlfriend voting shares and his sons shares with financial value. But that's not what happened. The whole bundle went to the ex-girlfriend, which is a bit of a strange occurrence.