Thank you for coming back.
The value of the company, as established by the court expert, is about £700,000. Other assets are about £1,3 million. I consider it undervalued and offered a premium of £500,000 at the FDR. Still no settlement happened.
The other answer is slightly long!
When we split I had 48% shares, she 44.5%. She ousted me as CEO using her position as sole director. Then she tried to take my shares by filing a false ARO1, showing my shareholding as NIL. In solicitors' correspondence she justified her action with a string of lies. I filed a police case, she was arrested, and confessed to her wrong doing. I now felt sorry for her - being arrested was a big thing for her - and in the interest of making up, and considering she has a serious illness with poor prognosis, I "gifted" my shares to her. Since then she has 92.5% shares. It unfortunately didn't change her attitude, as I hoped, and she has continued to do everything to run me to the ground, financially and otherwise, while taking steps to ensure the company becomes unattractive for me as a target in Final Hearing.
A family home in London, another flat in London, two flats in India, and a company in India whose value now in NIL, since she stopped feeding it business from London (it was dependent on the London company) and which is with me.
She has not made any offer. I have made two offers, one in which I run the company and another in which she runs it. She rejected both without making a counter offer.
At the FDR the balancing payment in my favour was £700,000, if she kept the company. She only offered £250,000 which I rejected. She is hellbent on keeping the company as a prestige issue. I don't care either way, as I will start a new business, but I know I can run the family business better. Sales under her have declined big time - by over a million pounds - and her health is on the decline.
Both children are adults (27 and 24).
Our marriage was 30 years long.
Solicitors of both sides, however, seem in agreement that it is a 50:50 division case.
Thank you. Since you have collected so much information, you may as well tell me if it is worth claiming the company, or do such things don't happen?
I am afraid I have a further follow up question. I am happy for it to be treated as a fresh question and be charged for it.
In issuing these fresh shares - at an undervalue - the main aim of my ex was to lower her shareholding to less than 50%, making it unattractive for me to claim her shares in the settlement.
If the judge recognises the undervaluation, and compensates me for the loss in the settlement, will she/he ignore the underlying motive and let the company remain with her, even though the dilution happened with a malafide intention? Can she/he not set aside these new shares' issues and allot me the company with a shareholding with which I can actually run it?