Divorces involving substantial assets present uniquely challenging issues. The challenges vary depending upon the assets and other matters in dispute, the ease of valuation and the level of cooperation or acrimony in the matter. An important step toward the resolution of any divorce is the valuation of involved property. Complex cases may involve many forms of assets, including business interests, stock options, trusts, family holdings, commercial real estate, investment real estate, intellectual property, alternative investments, inherited assets, interests in sports or entertainment enterprises, luxury assets and properties, art and many other interests. These assets are valued in different ways. Disputes concerning variations in valuations or valuation methodologies, retention of assets, transferability of assets or ongoing maintenance are common. We understand the unique challenges of high net-worth divorce and we are committed to helping our clients protect their interests and their future in a confidential manner.
Cases with complex assets require counsel familiar with such assets, related valuation principles, and options for the division of each such asset. There are significant differences between what parties can do by agreement and what a court will do if a case is litigated. For example, courts are inclined toward short and certain cash payment arrangements, but parties may be willing to take payments over time, tied to certain events, with more or less security, or with detailed or varying contingencies. Courts would not require parties to remain business partners after a divorce, but in rare circumstances it may be advantageous for the parties to remain partners in various investments or ventures. Such an outcome would only be achieved through a carefully negotiated resolution. Through discussion and creative negotiations, the parties’ mutual goals can often be met, and a financially advantageous outcome achieved. Courts will approve highly nuanced agreements relating to complex assets, even if a court would not or could not order such an agreement after a trial.