Case No. BV20D11362

38.He filed two witness statements in support. The first was from Mr T, who, prior to his retirement, had been the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) of the trading company. He had been employed by the company from the mid 1990s to his retirement in 2021, although he remained a non-executive director until 30 September 2022. He had been offered 5.56% of the shares on the MBO, but on the basis that his shareholding would reduce to 5% with the employee share scheme. He paid £29,000. He says that the Husband had then negotiated a 30% increase in prices with Q Co. The Husband’s approach was bullish and he achieved most of what he wanted to achieve. Again, in 2019, the Husband renegotiated the Q Co contract favourably, obtaining a ten year supply contract and a royalty stream for seventeen years. He describes these contract renegotiations as “game changers”. He deals with the plant and machinery upgrade. He mentions specialised therapy briefly but, as Mr Marks points out, he does not say that the Husband was responsible for that development. He does say that the Husband was still active after he resigned as CEO. He adds that he considers the M Fund offers were fair at the time and he would have sold to M Fund and then did sell 4.44% to Mr S at a price that valued the entire company at £72 million, although I do not, of course, know if there was any discount for a minority interest included in the calculations. He ends by saying that he considered the amazing increase in value was caused by five principal reasons, one of which was being seen as having the potential to manufacture improved products in the high priority specialised therapy space. The Husband did not micro-manage but saw the bigger picture. 39.The second statement in support was dated 12 January 2023 and came from Ms DE, Vice President of Corporate Finance at X Co. She says that she believes the Husband was pivotal to the MBO. X Co had known difficult decisions needed to be taken. X Co rejected the M Fund proposals as it wanted to retain its stake so long as the Husband was involved in the trading company, due to their faith in him. The Wife accepted both statements and did not require either witness to attend for cross-examination. Indeed, Mr Marks relies on these statements as part of his case. 40.I conducted the Pre-Trial Review on 18 January 2023. I made an injunction preventing either party from revealing, in effect, the details of the case to the children. On 24 February 2023, the Husband made an on account payment to the Wife of DKK 250 million, which is approximately £29.5 million.