Case No. BV19D16672

at paragraph 63:“Blinding oneself to the knowledge of subsequent events, while conforming to the purity of valuation theory, obviously risks serious injustice”.When I have a current open market price, I should use it.68.I accordingly use the figure of $6 per share rather than $10.45 and applying the 10% discount used by Mr Bezant to reflect the constraints as a sponsor in realising the shareholding produces a value for the business’s share of holding after payment to the deal team of some $5.4m as opposed to the $9.4m allowed for in the valuation.69.I can see no basis for removing from the valuation the priority loan made by H’s co-founder. H’s partner plainly expects it to be repaid. I have been provided with no reason why he should forego repayment of this sum which is unmatched by any contribution of H. Mr Bezant allowed for it in his valuation.Transaction costs at 2% fall well within the normal bracket of 1-3% seen by Mr Bezant in realisation costs. I deduct them from all business values except what is the big one, namely H’s interest in ABC. I do not allow those costs because H’s share value has been discounted by 15% to reflect his minority interest. The discount ceases to be relevant when there is a sale. To then discount further by removing notional sale costs is to double-count.70.The effect of all these findings is to produce a valuation of H’s interest in ABC at $24m (as I find it to be) which translates into a value of £19.16m.