A New Jersey judge has barred Laura Overdeck, the estranged wife of hedge fund billionaire John Overdeck, from testifying in their record-breaking divorce case due to what the court deemed "multiple discovery abuses." The ruling significantly limits her ability to pursue her claim for a substantial portion of her husband's wealth.
New Jersey Family Court Judge Bruce Buechler found that Laura Overdeck engaged in domestic espionage and evidence destruction, according to a transcript of a prior hearing. These actions included illicitly accessing her husband’s private computer to photograph emails exchanged with his lawyers, breaking into his post office box, and deleting evidence from her phone. As a result of these findings, she will be unable to testify or call expert witnesses in the divorce proceedings, which her attorney has described as the most expensive contested divorce in New Jersey history.
Laura Overdeck is seeking approximately $6.2 billion from her estranged husband, a co-founder of the hedge fund Two Sigma. Her legal team had estimated this amount as a 35% stake in John Overdeck’s fortune. However, the judge's ruling severely restricts her capacity to present her case, barring her from submitting affirmative evidence, testifying in support of her claims, or presenting her own valuation experts.
Despite the limitations on her testimony, Judge Buechler stated that the marital assets still require equitable distribution, meaning the Overdeck fortune will be divided. A key point of contention is whether John Overdeck's stake in Two Sigma, a firm founded two years before their 2002 marriage, will be considered a marital asset.
During the initial day of testimony, Laura Overdeck's lawyer indicated that a settlement offer of $633 million had been rejected. John Overdeck's attorney countered that the offer was actually $723 million tax-free and disputed the $6.2 billion figure, stating that a 35% share of his company stock was valued at $4.9 billion.
Laura Overdeck is also pursuing a lawsuit against the law firm responsible for the couple's estate planning, alleging the firm secretly worked to "divorce-proof" her husband's assets while simultaneously representing her. Her legal team is currently appealing the judge's ruling that barred her testimony, with that process ongoing. Representatives for her legal team declined to comment.