Subject: Fwd: Marked up MSA
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:51:53 -0500

So you have my edits and comments to the last version.  Some of this is now moot, but I think still helpful.

Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC
2900 K Street, NW
Suite 507
Washington, DC 20007
(202) 333-1880
[email-masked] <x-msg://59/[email-masked]>
P Consider the environment before printing this email.

WE’VE MOVED: PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS ABOVE

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Eric Schwerin <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Marked up MSA
> Date: March 6, 2017 at 2:58:50 PM EST
> To: "Sarah E. Mancinelli" <[email-masked]>, Hunter Biden <[email-masked]>
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah/Hunter-
> 
> Here’s some markups on the bank account info, etc. should you get to the point of wanting to send back.
> 
> Some additional points/questions as I was reading through it (and you may have already addressed in mediation):
> 
> 1) It mentions a Bank of America CD that is in Hunter, Kathleen and Finnegan’s name.  I think this is something that was given to Finnegan at some point. Shouldn’t it go to Finnegan now and not solely to Kathleen?
> 
> 2) I think at one point Hunter wanted to limit the list of outstanding debts that included the Dermatologist, Lourdes, Morgan Wingate, etc? 
> 
> 3) Didn’t know how to put this in but I also thought at one point there was discussion about limiting the additional spousal support (the % on any dollar over $1.3m for example) until Hunter was able to pay the taxes off.  So, as long as Hunter was using that to pay off back debt Kathleen would forgo the additional payments?
> 
> 4) As it relates to Child Support, how does spending money for the kids work?  If they get an allowance is that something Kathleen provides out of Child Support or something Hunter provides.  If Finnegan is getting Child Support until she’s 21 but Hunter is providing for her education expenses which I assume include room/board and money spending money at school.  I am sure there is a standard definition but the way it is written may leave room for misunderstanding.
> 
> 5) The agreement in 12 (b) talks about any remuneration Hunter receives from RSTP, Owasco PC or Owasco LLC “related to work performed prior to the execution of this Agreement” being split evenly between the parties.  This would seem to conflict with Kathleen’s interest in getting a certain percentage of Hunter’s income above a certain level.  This double counts potential income.   I think “regular, periodic salary” is also not defined and in Hunter’s case he doesn’t get a “regular, periodic salary” and would leave room for disagreements.  
> 
> 6) I took out mention of the “debt” to Kathleen’s parents.  I am not opining on whether a payment should be paid but it needs to be put in the agreement in a way that makes more sense.  
> 
> Just some thoughts when and if you are willing to return to this.  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric D. Schwerin
> Rosemont Seneca Advisors, LLC
> 2900 K Street, NW
> Suite 507
> Washington, DC 20007
> (202) 333-1880
> [email-masked] <x-msg://59/[email-masked]>
> P Consider the environment before printing this email.
> 
> WE’VE MOVED: PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS ABOVE
>