Almost certainly not classified as a charitable donation.
In this case, he obviously blows past that limit quickly.
> Subsequent filings from four trusts show that about half of his gifted shares were transferred to them. Those trusts have in turn sold most of the shares they reported receiving, netting at least $1.2 billion in proceeds so far.
Seems like the CEO thinks that it's downhill from here; I'm not sure what other reason there would be to do this.
Estate planning is very likely code for tax avoidance. I know basically nothing about Kurtz, I would venture this is all going to family and structuring this staggering generational wealth so they don't overpay taxes.
OTOH, California recently added a transfer on death deed that may provide a simpler way to avoid probate on homes, which may reduce the number of trusts formed just for that.
A lot of people leave California and still think they need a trust in other states, so trusts in other states are growing in numbers as well.
"I have not seen this before" != "this is not common," as much as people on the internet tend to confuse the two.
>It’s why you see even average personal homes placed in trusts.
This statement meant to convey that people with average levels of wealth, such that tax liability is low enough such that tax avoidance is not necessary, can also benefit from spending a couple thousand dollars with an estate lawyer.
Technically, their heirs benefit because they don’t need to deal with probate court.
> 1 or 2 large customers taking a massive stake avoid the business getting sued into the ground
?
Too much of a coincidence in a short amount of time.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/09/crowdstri...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/crowdstrike-probed-over-32m-i...
A plausible explanation.
If his end goal is to simply liquidate his position, maybe the "gifting shares to trust" is just part of a tax avoidance scheme (even if it sounds illegal, it often isn't).
I've seen this very commonly with private company founders expecting an exit in the next couple years, but very possible this situation is completely different.
The fact that it triggered a clause to eliminate preferred voting shares is very odd. Either a complete oversight by the guy's lawyer, or if it was done intentionally, I have no idea.
The billoin dollar question is why? Seems it could only be a handful of things:
Major health problem so the controlling stake won't matter.
Major unannounced issue that would cause the stock to drop precipitously (on paper he'd be facing prison time, but I think we all know he won't even if true).
Outside pressure, presumably from a government entity because I don't know what private party would have the juice to push him out.
Outside of that, unless he's just done with the rat race, planning on retiring and just not working anymore I've got a lot of nothing. When you have as much money as he has, I don't see why you'd give up control of your baby willingly as part of "normal estate planning" at his age.
To be fair, I'm not sure it could be much worse than the major announced issues of the past few years.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/09/crowdstri...
Given the business crowdStrike is, it is now unlikely this scheme was setup by some three letter agency from the countries involved with this company. So, the control of the company is handled by one or more entities they trust.
It's never illegal, as far as I know. When it's illegal it's tax evasion.
Should new evidence come to light, new charges can be filed.
It's probably not an oversight. E.g. in Hong Kong, it is mandatory to have a minimum amount of equity (I think 10%), otherwise you will lose all super-voting power. I don't think a similar requirement is present in the US, but the logic behind is valid: the super-voting power is for a founder / important member of the company to maintain control and therefore allow for a long-term strategy to be carried out, even after multiple rounds of financing. If you're no longer a major shareholder and working for the company, the super-voting power may no longer be appropriate, as your priorities and preferences may now differ from the company.
Doing it before creditors are interested in you, including even a spouse, shields those assets. With a good spendthrift clause even alimony couldnt get those assets. You dont get them with either though, but you can still direct control.
No longer on your balance sheet
Surprised the stock is up.
wslh•9mo ago