Telephone
Helpline
Discussions
& Chats
Case
Histories
Available
Downloads

You are not logged in.

Facebook Twitter Google Digg Reddit LinkedIn Pinterest StumbleUpon Email

In order to post messages to this discussion board click here to login/register

Back

Home Register

why?

Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Subject: i find all this financial stuff a bit boggling Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:54:16

ok. i have been told in past on this board that i would only be entitled to either spousal maintenance or my shares. i have since read that i would be entitled to my shares anyway and spousal maintenance would still apply. obviously, provided the needs and ability to pay are met. is this the case?

Replies

sometimesitdoesn'twork

Username: sometimesitdoesn'twork
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:55:03

It boils down to the same issues we\'ve been through before. Do the shares have a capital value or is the value of the business income? Is your husband the business or can it be sold on? For example I work as a freelance consultant and apart from my laptop there is no capital value, it is my knowledge and experience that I get paid for so without me there is no business. What do you do if the other two thirds of the share holders decide not to pay out any dividends or to channel business through another company? The way courts calculate spouse maintenance is to deduct the recipient\'s reasonable expenses (broadly, taking into consideration life styles and an element of sharing) from their income to establish their income needs. If you retain a shareholding and dividends are paid the difference between your income and income needs is less so your \'need\' of SM is diminished. However, the purpose of ancillary relief is to separate the finances as much as possible so unless someone actually worked in the business it is usual for business assets to be offset against other assets.

why?

Username: why?
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:54:16

ok. i will ask the value of my shares in the business valuation. although h is the main man so to speak, he could sell the business. there are about 300 staff i believe and 2 or 3 management people. its not as though he is doing the actual hands on work, he gets the contracts yes and grows the business but someone else with experience could run it. i am told by him and his people that it is the income generated that is available but all will be done in valuation. i wont know until this is done. when you say that business assets can be offset against other assets, does this mean my shares could be offset against his equity in the house?

sprout

Username: sprout
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:54:16

If your ex2b was in a one or two person business then, there is a lot of flexibility about his effective salary (how it is made up of salary/dividends/bonuses and shares), and also about the value of the business. If there are only one or two main income generators in the business then there is value in them, but perhaps not the same sort of value in the business as a general principal. Since this is an approx 300 person company it is sizeable. I am guessing that this started out as a £100 off-the-shelf company or something similar. If this was the case and you owned 25% of the shares then your stake is in theory worth £25. If, since formation the company has gone from zero to 300 employees, it is probably worth a ton nore than your initial \"25% of initial capitalisation price\" shareholding. Perhaps time for an independent valuation? Good luck!

why?

Username: why?
Joined:
Posts:
Location:

Message

Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013 - 12:54:16

thanks. working on brief. cant wait to get through this. once we have the valuation done and provided he has answered the questions satisfactorily we should really be in a position to start negotiating. i have a hunch of course that his answersnto the questions are not going to be satisfactory. keeping fingers crossed. ps. i would have far preferred an independant valuation but legal folk and judge all agreed it should be a joint one because no doubt h would argue it and then we would end up in a costly argument. however i think there are going to be significant costs involved anyway and h did go and arrange his own valuation done by his accountant which he paid for supposedly.
You need to login / register to post a reply.