Business valuation took a back seat to forensics in the new judgement from the High Court in the Akhmedova family drama, this time in a claim against the husband (Farkhad) and the son (Temur) who went out of their way to create “dishonest schemes” to place identified assets in jurisdictions beyond the reach of the UK courts or the wife (Tatiana). In this new chapter of the story that began with a filing 30 October 2013, Mrs Justice Knowles concludes that Temur “is a dishonest individual who will do anything to assist his father,” and the intermediaries are crooks: “I reject Borderedge’s claim that it acted in good faith.”

As widely reported, insolvency principles also played a role, since the original trust intended to pay the first 2016 judgement was emptied, so Ms. Akhmedova’s experts sought relief by requesting that asset transfer transactions be stopped under the UK Insolvency Act of 1986.

The financial experts in the new case (Akhmedova v. Akhmedov [2021] EWHC 545 (Fam)) had to unravel new Panamanian, Cypriot, and Liechtensteinian trusts, shell companies, and wealth transfers to London-based Temur, but there was relatively little doubt about the actual value of the super-yacht Luna, the art, the Cape Ferrat real estate, or the hidden cash. (It’s been reported widely that the battling ex-spouses had reached a settlement at about a third of the original judgement, so this decision may not be enforced.)

Justice Knowles quotes Tolstoy (“all unhappy families …”), which seems relevant to the application of professional standards in this case. Business valuers are obligated to search for independence and objectivity to achieve a standard of value that’s “fair.” It all goes for naught when contentious parties are more interested in hurting one another than they are in settling a financial dispute.