Falling property prices have pushed equities lower for the past nine months, constrained credit and ... forced British couples to stay married?

According to a study by accounting firm Grant Thornton, divorce filings have fallen precipitously in the United Kingdom. Fallout from the worldwide financial crisis has made it harder for couples to sell a jointly owned home and impairs the ability for each soon-to-be-ex-partner to start and sustain an individual lifestyle.

The U.K. Office for National Statistics put the number of divorce filings at 12.2 per 1,000 marriages in 2006 and 11.9 in 2007 -- a 26-year low.

Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) who gained notoriety for his infamous party sporting a statue of David spouting vodka from its penis, paid for in part by the company's shareholders, is back in the news.

The 60-year old former bigwig was sentenced to 8 1/3 to 25 years in prison in 2005, and his wife filed for divorce in January. He was served with the papers in prison. But now divorce talks between the two parties have broken down, and it is expected that Kozlowski will have to disclose his assets by October 15.

That could make shareholders happy, as they may be able to collect damages related to Kozlowski's looting during his tenure at the company.

According to Bloomberg, Kozlowski has paid $97 million restitution to Tyco, but still owes a $70 million fine, most of which is being held in escrow pending the outcome of his appeal. Roughly $600 million in assets held by Kozlowski were frozen by a court in 2002, and Tyco is still hoping to recover more money from its former CEO.

For an excellent overview of everything that went wrong at Tyco during Kozlowski's time at the helm, check out Greed Corporate Failure.

If the goal of advertising is to draw attention to your company and the services it offers, FGA Law Firm accomplished that in spades. This "Life's short. Get a divorce." billboard was removed from its downtown Chicago location after one week, ironically because no permit had been obtained for the over-sized sign. The decision was not content-related, according to the city alderman. Corri Fetman and Kelly Garland, the attorneys responsible for the ad aren't happy: "They ripped our billboard down without due process. We own that art. I feel violated," said Fetman, although he did add that the sign had served its purpose, bringing in many new clients (I'm sure it also drew its share of angry calls).

This raises an interesting question about the purpose of marketing and advertising: Is it really just about drawing attention? If that's the case, are we just feeding the monster by criticizing products like the Cocaine energy drink, or Spyke alcoholic beverages? What about Camel cigarettes?

I don't know that I have an answer; in some ways not all publicity is good publicity. In the case of the FGA Law Firm, some divorcees may see the ad as cynical and opt for a firm that takes a more sensitive approach to the business of divorce. At least, I'd like to think that kind of advertising would turn off a lot of potential clients.

In the meantime, this Chicago law firm is getting exposure in nationwide media outlets including the USA Today. Will it pay off financially too?

Spare me the halos. The Wall Street Journal has poetically placed two above the heads of Edra and Tim Blixseth, billionaires who had the good sense to divorce amicably, saving themselves millions and sparing themselves embarrassing headlines.

"Their peaceable parting marks a triumph of hope over history, and reason over money," Robert Frank wrote in "A Billionaire Divorce -- And Not a Lawyer in Sight," on Jan. 2, launching a new column and blog, "The Wealth Report."

Call me old-fashioned, but how can a divorce ever reasonably be described as a "triumph of hope over history"? That description would work for a couple that found a way to save their 25-year marriage -- not end it as the Blixseths have done. More important, even if the Blixseths have found a way to navigate the painful process of divorce while holding onto their dignity and self-respect, there is no way that divorce is ever a triumph of "reason over money" either.

The fact is, both people would clearly be a lot wealthier together than they are apart. Essentially, as the article describes, each of them is giving up use of half the assets they once possessed -- condos, jets, even pets. I'm sure living expenses don't put too much of a dent in the Blixseths' checking accounts, but the basic math of divorce still applies and many of those expenses double. Even for billionaires, it has got to be cheaper to live together than apart.

Plus, studies show that divorce almost always leaves women worse off financially than they were before. And, anecdotally at least, it leaves a lot of men at least feeling a lot worse off financially -- especially if they remarry, start a new family, and still have the "old" wife and kids to support (a scenario that doesn't apply here).

Of course divorcing couples should do their best to split amicably. Anyone actually going through the process quickly learns that there are mediators aplenty out there to help couples navigate the process without using a lawyer. (See, Nolo.com for more on this).

Fact is, it's sad reading about a couple like the Blixseths that once seemed so well-suited, who were able to build such wealth together and seem to have fun doing it -- decide to split. (Gee, maybe wealth doesn't always lead to happiness?). For this reader at least, Frank's inaugural piece -- while a fascinating topic -- would have been far better with a little less applause.