Case No. BV20D11362

12.There is no doubt that the marriage broke down in 2019. The Husband did not leave the family home until June 2019. At the beginning of this litigation, both parties accepted June 2019 as the date for the separation but the Husband has, more recently, contended that the real date should be taken as January 2019, when the Wife said, during an argument, that the marriage was over. The children were then informed and the Husband began to look for an alternative property to rent. In April 2019, the parties sold the family home in Denmark. After discharge of the mortgage, the net proceeds of sale were DKK 1.3 million, or approximately £151,163. 13.The Husband says that, in February 2020, he negotiated further significant amendments to the contract with Q Co that secured a ten year unbreakable supply agreement at 30% higher prices along with amendments to the licencing agreements, which he says guaranteed the trading company £4 million per annum in royalties. 14.On 14 April 2020, the Wife applied to the court for permission to relocate permanently to Denmark with the children. This litigation was clearly hard fought and stressful for both parties. On 2 October 2020, after a three day hearing, an agreement was finally reached by which the Wife was given permission to relocate to Denmark with the children in July 2021. There was to be a shared care agreement whereby the children would spend nine days per fortnight with her and five with the Husband. 15.M Fund returned to the trading company in May 2020 with a third offer. On this occasion, M Fund offered to purchase 12% of the shares on the basis that the entire trading company was valued at £65 million. The offer was to buy just over 4% of the shares held by the CFO, Mr T and the 8% held by X Co. Again, X Co declined. M Fund were not interested in only buying 4% of the business, so again withdrew. The Husband had only been working three days per week for the business. He has long suffered from mental health difficulties and it was clear that the combination of the MBO and these proceedings was taking a heavy toll upon him. In July 2020, he stepped down as CEO of the business. Mr S, another shareholder who was a party to the MBO, took over. The Husband remained as executive without portfolio, working, according to the papers in this case, one day per week. As he wished to retire, Mr T sold his 4.44% of the shares to Mr S, on the basis of a valuation for the overall trading company of £72 million, although it is not clear to me if there was any significant reduction for it being a small minority interest.