Case No. FD19F00071

94.In 2015 a construction venture was commenced to take place in Germany. It was facilitated by AS, the son of friends of H and W, and much time has been spent on trying to work out who the main participant and controller has been of what are now 5 projects. H says that ND is the owner and that he has done no more than provide the benefit of his experience and advice when his son was dealing with the outside world. 95.I heard evidence both from AS and ND on this. I refuse to be drawn into any finding about their conduct towards each other and the business. There has been a major falling out between AS and ND and there are legal proceedings taking place in Germany between them. 96.I do not think it is necessary for me to spend significant time on this. It is clear to me that H does have an interest in the business. There is a raft of correspondence showing him to be far more closely involved in it than he asserts and H says that £700k of the proceeds of the sale of the first matrimonial home ended up with SC Ltd which ND describes as his company. In turn SC then loaned these monies to VLI. This is one of two companies (the other is VLM) which bears the initials of H. 97.H’s fingerprints are over much of the German activity, including significant decisionmaking about agreements with contractors, financial models, negotiations with copartners and employees etc. 98.The reason that it is unnecessary for me to spend too much time on this is because the profits of the business which are estimated by AS at €9.6m are substantially overstated, omitting as they do: i) Corporate taxes at 20-25% ii) AS’s claimed commission of 15% and include over €1m in respect of a project which has stalled and which will produce little return. Further there appears to be double-counting of the return of two projects. 99.ND puts the value of the venture pre-tax at a more modest €4.7m to be divided between the shareholders plus €1.7m of interest on the loans made by the Foundation. ND claims that his shareholding is in the range 67-95% depending on the project and that H has no shareholding. 100.I do not accept ND’s evidence that his father has no interest and I can see no reason why H’s expertise is said to be unrewarded and why H should not be sharing in the receipt of the interest on the loans which emanate from his funds. 101.I regard ND’s evidence as to value as more likely to be accurate than that of AS in the light of the matters set out at 98 above and that in consequence the total profits will not exceed about half the figure quoted by AS. They are in some way to be divided between H and ND. They are not sufficient to make a difference to the outcome of the case.