INTO THE WOODS: THE MURKY REALMS OF VALUATIONS

The value of a business interest, whether as capital or simply an income stream, will be taken into account by the court when considering how to divide the assets fairly. Ascertaining the capital value of a company can be an expensive process fraught with difficulty due to the numerous different but equally subjective ways in which its value can be calculated. However where the company in question is a small family business which provides the main income stream and as such is unlikely to be sold, courts are not always willing to permit a formal valuation to be undertaken.

WOLVES IN GRANDMA’S CLOTHING

It is not unusual for other interested parties to claim an interest in the business once divorce proceedings have been issued, such as the son who declares that his father’s shares are in fact held on trust for him (Shield v Shield [2014] EWHC 23) or the wife who asserts that her husband is the true beneficial owner of assets which other family members claim to own (TL v ML and Others (Ancillary Relief: Claim Against Assets of Extended Family) [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam)). Such issues add a further layer of complexity that requires dextrous disentanglement.

THE FAIREST SETTLEMENT OF THEM ALL

A variety of different factors are taken into account in determining the most appropriate way of dividing the assets on divorce but in the vast majority of cases the most important factor is the need of each party for accommodation and income. The aim in every case is to ensure that both parties obtain a fair settlement which provides for their needs.

In an ideal world there will be sufficient realisable capital in the matrimonial pot to provide for a clean break and immediate financial independence from each other. In reality, this is often not possible and there is persuasive (but not binding) English authority which supports the proposition that in the context of divorce proceedings, a business interest should not be sold simply to facilitate a clean break. Although there is no guarantee that a family business will be protected on divorce, the goose will only go to market where it is necessary and fair in all the circumstances of the case.

While the court cannot order the sale of the company itself, it can of course order the sale or transfer of shares. Problems can arise where third parties are also shareholders and objections are raised to the proposed transfer. However, unless liquidity is a serious problem and there is no other way to provide a settlement, an order for the sale of shares to a third party is usually a last resort.

Where husband and wife are both shareholders in the business the court will often order the transfer of shares to one party. But where neither wants to transfer their shareholding and the state of their relationship does not preclude it, it can be appropriate for them to continue to retain their shareholdings, at least for a time. This is otherwise known as “Wells sharing” following the case of Wells v Wells [2002] 2 FLR 97) and ensures that both parties share in the rewards (and the risks) of the company’s future performance. This may be preferable to the business going off to market and can help ensure that each party receives a fair division of the risk laden and illiquid assets as well as those which are copper bottomed.

PROTECT YOUR GOOSE

Where settlement cannot be achieved by negotiation between the parties, the court will determine how the assets should be divided and the option of the parties deciding for themselves will be lost. Various forms of pre-emptive action are available however. One method is by nuptial agreement (i.e. an agreement between the husband and wife either before or after the marriage) providing for one party’s shares to be sold back to the company on divorce, thereby preventing the business from being fragmented and ensuring the enjoyment of those golden eggs for many years to come.

PDF Version

Type

Insight

Locations

Jersey

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
27 Sep 2022

Similar but Different

While the basic features of the trust remain, there are some notable differences in how trusts can b...

1 Aug 2022

Register of Overseas Entities: A Jersey perspective

The Register of Overseas Entities at Companies House (ROE), as contemplated by the Economic Crime (T...

30 Jun 2022

Digital Identification in Jersey

There have been considerable changes made to the way we do business in recent times. These changes w...

Contributors: Gemma Whale, Paul Worsnop
17 Jun 2022

Proposals to amend the Powers of Attorney (Jersey) Law 1995

Following the recent update from our Guernsey colleagues on the introduction of lasting or enduring ...

Contributors: Gemma Whale
9 Jun 2022

Trustee Knowledge Series: Masters Paper Two: Family Governance

Appleby Private Client & Trust Partner David Dorgan has authored and distributed a series of Tru...

17 May 2022

Navigating the Jersey M&A landscape (3 of 3)

This is the third of a series of three articles, each dealing with topics to be considered when buyi...

Contributors: Andrew Weaver
5 May 2022

The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022: a Jersey perspective

The new Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act received Royal Assent on 15 March 2022 (th...

Contributors: Andrew Weaver, Gemma Whale
21 Apr 2022

Listing Private Equity Acquisition Debt on The International Stock Exchange

This article provides a summary of Appleby listing agent services in the Channel Islands, and also o...

12 Apr 2022

Trustee Knowledge Series: Masters Paper One: PTC Structures

Appleby Private Client & Trust Partner David Dorgan has authored and distributed a series of Tru...

16 Mar 2022

Trustee Knowledge Series: Advanced Paper Eight: Amending Mistakes

It is almost inevitable that during the life of most trusts (which can now last indefinitely in many...