A business is an asset and if it has a value then the value of that asset will be taken into account by the courts in dividing the divorcing couple’s assets. A business, however, is not a liquid asset and is treated differently from cash or investments. Extracting value in the form of cash from the business can be difficult and also there will be tax implications. Often a business owned by a spouse will simply provide the family with an income and will not be treated by the court as an asset.
It is highly unlikely that a business will be lost or have to be sold as a result of the division of assets within a divorce. Though it has the power to order a sale, the court will be careful not to kill the golden goose. Often the business has funded the parties’ lifestyles, enabled the children to go to private school and paid for luxury holidays and executive vehicles. In rare situations where a spouse has failed to comply with a court order to pay their spouse a lump sum one of the methods of enforcement is the sale of the business.
It is also rare for the court to transfer shares in a Limited Company, or an interest in a Partnership to a spouse as part of the divorce, if the spouse has had no involvement in the business. Doing so can affect the running of the business, more so if relations have soured. Furthermore, one of the key aims in the divorce process is to effect a clean break between the parties, both financially and personally. If the court does transfer shares to a spouse then it may necessitate a properly negotiated shareholders agreement to minimise post-divorce conflict.
If the business has what is known as a capital value and is not treated solely as a producer of income, then the court can appoint an expert accountant to value the business. The costs of the expert are normally shared equally. Those costs will vary depending on the size of the business and complexity of the exercise. The costs can vary from between £5000 to £30,000 depending on the size and complexity of the business. If the business owns assets such as real estate then those assets may also need to be valued by a surveyor, meaning these costs may increase. A business valuation is a work of art rather than science, as the true value depends upon what a purchaser is willing to pay for it and in the vast majority of cases the business is private so there are rarely directly comparable examples within the market place to assist the expert. Often the business can also be heavily dependent on the input and ongoing involvement of a key shareholder so this needs to be taken into account to consider its value as a viable ongoing operation.
The valuation of the business will produce a paper asset but the true question that the court and the parties will need to consider within negotiations is liquidity: namely the ability of the business to raise cash so one or other of the parties can pay a lump sum as part of a divorce settlement. This can depend on the level of surplus cash in the business and other factors such as the ability of the business to borrow. A spouse can be ordered to pay a lump sum or lump sum by instalments to give them time to raise the necessary cash.
The expert can also be asked to consider the sustainable income which the business can generate going forwards to assist the court in deciding what level of maintenance that spouse should pay their ex-spouse after the divorce if there is insufficient liquidity to raise a lump sum. The court will be careful not to double count the capital value of a business in addition to the income generated by a spouse via the same business when the question of spousal maintenance comes to be considered.
The court can order a valuation of a business run by an individual as a sole trader or a partnership just as it can a Limited Company. The same valuation principles will apply. There will, however, be different considerations that apply to each, in particular, the tax consequences for taking money out of each different type of business will be different.
The court can order the valuation of a minority shareholding just as it can a business solely owned by a spouse or of which the spouse is the majority shareholder. However, guided by the expert valuer, the court will usually apply a discount to the valuation of a minority shareholding due to the lack of control a minority shareholder has in the running of the business unless the Company is treated as a ‘Quasi-partnership’, such as where there is a close family relationship between shareholders of a private company where the court determines that the Minority shareholder would only sell their shares as part of an overall sale of the business. If there are other shareholders then he will need the cooperation and often the agreement of his fellow shareholders. Having third party shareholders involved will often complicate matters as the Articles of Association may restrict the transfer of shares, furthermore, it has implications for the disclosure of Company information which belongs to the Company as a separate legal entity.
In short yes. In family proceedings there is a duty of full, frank and clear disclosure. The court will order a spouse to disclose documents that they have power and control over in their position as a director. These documents are often required by the Expert when valuing the business. If another Director or the Company itself objects to the disclosure of documents then they may intervene in the proceedings and the court will consider their objections.
If the property or asset concerned (such as plant and machinery) is owned in the name of a limited company then only in very exceptional circumstances can the court order its sale or transfer, even where the company is owned by one of the parties to the marriage.
It is important for spouses to be aware that the jointly instructed expert acts more like a ‘ferret’ than a ‘bloodhound’. They are not there to investigate wrongdoings, rather to give a broad opinion of the valuation and liquidity of the business. If a spouse who has no involvement in the business suspects their spouse of diverting income or playing down the success and profitability of the business, and is not happy with the joint expert report, they can seek permission to involve an expert instructed solely by them. In those circumstances the Court will expect there to be good evidence that the jointly instructed expert’s conclusions are wide of the mark. Before this occurs each party has the opportunity to ask questions about the expert’s report and see if they change their conclusions as a result. Stowe Family Law is unique amongst law firms which specialise in this field in having its own department of forensic accountants available to assist with this type of exercise.
The general principle is the court will share equally assets built up during the marriage which includes a business. As with other assets, if the business is one that a spouse owned before the parties began their relationship, then there may be available arguments to ring fence some or all of it from division in divorce or support a departure from equality. This may complicate the valuation exercise as the expert may need to value the business both at the time of the commencement of a settled relationship and also at the time of the divorce, thereby increasing the costs of the exercise. Equally arguments can be employed to ring fence a proportion of the value of the business built up following separation. Whether the court will give a spouse credit for pre or post acquired value in the business, will depend on whether the other spouse’s financial needs can be met without recourse to the asset value of the business, otherwise those needs have priority.
