Valuation of Shares at the time of separation.

[spidrr019]

You have a valuation that was done at the time of separation.
There's nothing that arguing here will help. Speak to an attorney.

There's no argument being had here, correct.

It's a discussion - ie. the literal purpose of these forums.

As previously mentioned multiple times, of course a lawyer will be sought.

If you have nothing to discuss in this thread, feel free to abandon it to those who might.

Thanks for you input.

 

[Zigner]

There's no argument being had here, correct.

It's a discussion - ie. the literal purpose of these forums.

As previously mentioned multiple times, of course a lawyer will be sought.

If you have nothing to discuss in this thread, feel free to abandon it to those who might.

Thanks for you input.

You are arguing one position, I am arguing another. It's an argument.
You are not in a position to dictate whether or not anybody posts on this thread.

 

[spidrr019]

You are arguing one position, I am arguing another. It's an argument.
You are not in a position to dictate whether or not anybody posts on this thread.

I can't help those who have trouble differentiating an argument from a discussion.

Now I understand the English language is difficult for some, but I'm not sure what part of the following paragraph from my most recent post you determined to be an argument - I've highlighted the key lines to help further your understanding.

Read carefully:

"The point, for those who missed it - is whether or not there is a reasonable argument to be made that because the shares could be bought back at any point at a nominal value deemed by the company - regardless of the circumstances of the buyback - the principle is that they could be bought back at any point and would that beg the question of whether or not they held any real value at all?

I'm not suggesting this is to be true. I'm asking a question and your alls opinion. "

^this is not an argument....

I can break it down for you further, but I feel that won't be worth it if you couldn't understand the above paragraph to be a discussion and asking for suggestions and thoughts rather than an argument one way or another so instead, without dictating who can and cannot post on these threads - my suggestion (not dictation as you wrongfully assumed), again, would be for you to abandon it as this is clearly disturbing you.

Thanks for your input.

 

[bcr229]

Were any of these private shares actually bought/sold back in 2018?

 

[spidrr019]

Were any of these private shares actually bought/sold back in 2018?

They were neither bought nor sold.

The only transactions to be had on the shares was the initial receipt of them, as sweat equity in the start up company back in 2015 and the subsequent buyback in 2022 as a result of the termination.

 

[bcr229]

They were neither bought nor sold.

The only transactions to be had on the shares was the initial receipt of them, as sweat equity in the start up company back in 2015 and the subsequent buyback in 2022 as a result of the termination.

Sorry I didn't mean just your shares, I meant anyone else's shares as well.

 

[spidrr019]

Sorry I didn't mean just your shares, I meant anyone else's shares as well.

My mistake -

No - 100% of the company shares are still held by individuals within the company. The shares that are held by the individuals that own them, where given to them as part of their employment contract or through sweat equity.

The shares have never been bought or sold otherwise.

 

[LdiJ]

My mistake -

No - 100% of the company shares are still held by individuals within the company. The shares that are held by the individuals that own them, where given to them as part of their employment contract or through sweat equity.

The shares have never been bought or sold otherwise.

You did mention that a CPA for the company did the previous valuation of the shares and there must have been a reason why they did valuation. That could be just as significant as a prior sale.

 

[spidrr019]

You did mention that a CPA for the company did the previous valuation of the shares and there must have been a reason why they did valuation. That could be just as significant as a prior sale.

You may be right.

Here's some more context surrounding that:

In 2018, while the company was not in its infancy - I would say it was in its toddler stages - ignorance on the issue played a large part.

Back then, I simply told the owner the situation and he then went out and got an evaluation done by a third party (CPA).

In contrast - if we fast forward to today and my most recent conversation with him stating that it's likely a re-evaluation would be needed for 2018 - his response was that he'd happily persue litigation for the next 20 years and bury the other party in legal fees rather than to open the books of his privately held company for something that happened 5 years ago. Stating (after speaking with his now hundreds of thousands of dollars retained lawyers) that the valuation of a privately held company is not so cut and dry as one might think and that he's willing to fight tooth and nail to keep his company books private.

 

[LdiJ]

You may be right.

Here's some more context surrounding that:

In 2018, while the company was not in its infancy - I would say it was in its toddler stages - ignorance on the issue played a large part.

Back then, I simply told the owner the situation and he then went out and got an evaluation done by a third party (CPA).

In contrast - if we fast forward to today and my most recent conversation with him stating that it's likely a re-evaluation would be needed for 2018 - his response was that he'd happily persue litigation for the next 20 years and bury the other party in legal fees rather than to open the books of his privately held company for something that happened 5 years ago. Stating (after speaking with his now hundreds of thousands of dollars retained lawyers) that the valuation of a privately held company is not so cut and dry as one might think and that he's willing to fight tooth and nail to keep his company books private.

OMG. Ok, well I cannot blame him for his reaction. You gave him the impression (100% falsely, I might add) that his books would be subject to investigation in your divorce case. If you have any reason whatsoever to need his goodwill in the future, you might consider abjectly apologizing for giving him that inaccurate impression and assure him that your divorce is not his problem in any way, shape or form and never will be.

Please don't talk to anyone else before you hire yourself an attorney and then ONLY say what your attorney tells you to say. You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

 

[spidrr019]

OMG. Ok, well I cannot blame him for his reaction. You gave him the impression (100% falsely, I might add) that his books would be subject to investigation in your divorce case. If you have any reason whatsoever to need his goodwill in the future, you might consider abjectly apologizing for giving him that inaccurate impression and assure him that your divorce is not his problem in any way, shape or form and never will be.

Please don't talk to anyone else before you hire yourself an attorney and then ONLY say what your attorney tells you to say. You are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

I think you're confused.

I didn't give him the impression that his books would be subject to investigation in my divorce case.

As a shareholder in 2018, I can assure you he is well aware that his books ARE subject to investigation in my divorce case.

I'm curious to know why you think that's false?

 

[LdiJ]

I think you're confused.

I didn't give him the impression that his books would be subject to investigation in my divorce case.

As a shareholder in 2018, I can assure you he is well aware that his books ARE subject to investigation in my divorce case.

I'm curious to know why you think that's false?

Because it is 100% false. It is a private company that is no longer affiliated with you at all. The court has no right to order him to open his books in your divorce case. The most he could be ordered to provide (and even that would be a stretch) is information regarding your individual employment and income from the company. Where in the world did you get the idea that the court could/would do otherwise??? He and his company are not a party to your divorce.

 

[spidrr019]

I think you're confused.

I didn't give him the impression that his books would be subject to investigation in my divorce case.

As a shareholder in 2018, I can assure you he is well aware that his books ARE subject to investigation in my divorce case.

Putting aside the main

I'm curious to know why you think that's false?

Because it is 100% false. It is a private company that is no longer affiliated with you at all. The court has no right to order him to open his books in your divorce case. The most he could be ordered to provide (and even that would be a stretch) is information regarding your individual employment and income from the company. Where in the world did you get the idea that the court could/would do otherwise??? He and his company are not a party to your divorce.

I think you might be wrong here.

If that's the case, are you saying there is no way my wife can get a valuation / payment for the shares at the time of separation and that I don't have to pay anything for them?

I know that to be vehemently false.

 

[spidrr019]

Because it is 100% false. It is a private company that is no longer affiliated with you at all. The court has no right to order him to open his books in your divorce case. The most he could be ordered to provide (and even that would be a stretch) is information regarding your individual employment and income from the company. Where in the world did you get the idea that the court could/would do otherwise??? He and his company are not a party to your divorce.

Let me walk that back - I don't know if that's false....but it is highly unlikely to me that a court would say "sorry lady, you're shit out of luck and our hands are tied because it's a privately held company".

I'm almost certain your wrong about that and I'm wondering if you know it to be a matter of fact?

That a court cannot order any private company to open their books to determine the value of shares that were once held by an ex-employee for the purposes of that ex-employees divorce case.

Curious if anyone else can attest.

 

[LdiJ]

I think you might be wrong here.

If that's the case, are you saying there is no way my wife can get a valuation / payment for the shares at the time of separation and that I don't have to pay anything for them?

I know that to be vehemently false.

I am not wrong. Where the heck did you get the crazy idea that she could only get a payment if the company's books were reinvestigated? A valuation already exists that was made at the time that you separated. If your wife gets payment for the shares it will be based on that valuation. You are not entitled to a "do over" as far as that is concerned. What you do potentially have the right to argue is that the shares were not actually worth that much based on what ended up happening with your employment and the shares. The burden of proof will be 100% on you to prove that the value of the shares tanked not just because of your behavior, but in general. However a judge wouldn't even have the authority to demand that your former company open their books to facilitate that. The company and it's shareholders are not parties to your divorce.

Consult an attorney. Seriously, just do it before you cause yourself more trouble.