With the lavish, celebrity-filled celebrations of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez’s Venice-based wedding dominating headlines over the past week, a natural question has emerged: “Did Bezos make the right decision in securing a prenuptial agreement this time around?”

Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, notably did not have a prenuptial agreement in place with his first wife, philanthropist and author Mackenzie Scott. Following their divorce, he transferred approximately 25% of his Amazon shareholdings to her, an interest valued at around $38 billion at the time.

Now, with the benefit of hindsight and experience, it comes as little surprise that Mr. Bezos has opted to put in place a prenuptial agreement before entering his second marriage to Ms. Sanchez. While the terms remain confidential, the decision raises intriguing questions, particularly from a legal perspective.

One such question is whether a prenuptial agreement would have significantly altered the financial outcome of his first divorce had the proceedings taken place under the laws of England and Wales rather than Washington State. Could this be the rationale behind his more cautious approach this time?

In short, it likely would have made a material difference. When Bezos and Scott married in 1993 a year before Amazon was founded, there was no binding agreement dictating how future income or assets from his soon-to-be formed business empire would be treated in the event of divorce. Under English law, and in the absence of a prenuptial agreement, the courts would almost certainly have classified Amazon shares as marital property, subject to the principle of equal sharing, though this would be tempered by any arguments around special contribution that Mr. Bezos might have advanced.

Had a prenuptial agreement existed, Ms. Scott’s final entitlement in Amazon might have been less than the reported 25%, particularly in recognition of Mr. Bezos’s role in scaling the company to unprecedented success, even while acknowledging her early and instrumental involvement. Furthermore, an agreement might have allowed for a more structured and strategic division of assets, thereby mitigating potential risks to Amazon’s corporate stability during the separation process.

Beyond the financial implications, a prenuptial agreement may have served to streamline the divorce itself. While the Bezos-Scott split was remarkably civil given the sums involved, it’s reasonable to assume that a well-drafted agreement could have reduced uncertainty, minimised negotiation timelines, and quieted media speculation regarding the future of Amazon and its leadership.

Of course, Mr. Bezos emerged from the divorce with control over Amazon intact, and the company’s operations continued without disruption. However, it is not difficult to imagine a very different scenario had the proceedings been contentious, or had they occurred in a jurisdiction such as England and Wales, where courts take a more interventionist role in redistributing wealth on divorce.

To view Mr. Bezos’s decision to secure a prenuptial agreement this time as a sign of mistrust would be reductive. Rather, it reflects prudence, planning, and a mutual understanding between the parties about how to protect their respective interests should the unexpected occur. In a world where relationships and fortunes are both subject to change, such agreements are less about pessimism and more about foresight.