Wealthy Interim Business Management After Separation

Management of Family Business after Separation

Wealthy Interim Business Management After Separation is a key are of conflict involving up to hundreds of millions of dollars or more for our UHNW international family clients. Our Mandarin Chinese fluent high net worth divorce team has handled numerous disputes over massive industrial and real estate development companies. Our cases set the precedent for how to obtain exclusive or shared control of a business and IF the other spouse continues to manage the business, we know how to put protections in place to ensure money does not go missing and there is a level financial playing field. Lorne MacLean KC gets asked a lot of questions on this important topic, so he set out this blog’s summary of the tips and the law he recommends in these high stakes cases. His winning case is frequently cited on this topic.

Vancouver Wealthy Interim Business Management After Separation Tel: 604 602 9000

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are embroiled in a legal battle over their former Chateau Miraval winery, with Pitt claiming Jolie violated a verbal agreement to buy his shares. Jolie sold her stake in the winery to Tenute del Mondo in 2021, which Pitt says was a violation of their prior agreement. Pitt alleges that Jolie’s actions were vindictive and aimed to seize profits and punish him. Jolie claims that Pitt demanded an NDA as part of the buyout negotiations, which she refused to sign. Vanity Fair’s article on the battle can be seen here. This case highlights how a dispute involving two spouses wanting control of a former family business can play out.

Wealthy Interim Business Management After Separation Lawyers Tel: 604 602 9000

Argument factors we consider using in a high stakes bet the bank control of the family business dispute include:

Historical Role in the Business

Who was primarily involved in day-to-day operations before separation?
Who has the operational expertise, licenses, or relationships with clients/customers/vendors?

Example: If Spouse A was always the active manager and Spouse B was a passive shareholder, Spouse A is more likely to retain interim control assuming they were doing a good job and not running the business into the ground, hiding income or alienating staff and customers.

Preservation of Business Value

Will allowing one spouse to manage prevent harm to the business (loss of contracts, staff, goodwill)?
Courts avoid handing control to someone who may destabilize or mismanage the business.

Ownership Interests

Legal or beneficial ownership (e.g., shares in a corporation, partnership stake).
Control rights under corporate law (e.g., voting shares, directorships).

Access to Financial Records

Courts may order joint access or require financial disclosures to the non-managing spouse.

Risk of Misuse or Dissipation

Evidence one spouse might misuse business funds, conceal income, or devalue the business can weigh against giving them control
Courts may impose restrictions (e.g., no large expenditures or withdrawals without consent or court order). So ordinary course, twice monthly meetings, daily access to bank accounts and monthly interim financials and sales and contracts and bid stats?

Need for Independent Oversight

In some cases, the court may appoint a receiver or monitor to manage or supervise the business operations neutrally.

Impact on Income and Support

If one party needs access to the business for income (e.g., child or spousal support), this is a relevant factor.

8. Who will likely retain business after trial ends?

9.Who is motivated to grow the business and create more profits as opposed to diminishing the business value as a scorched earth policy or to get a bargain basement buyout price?

MacLean Law’s Cases Guide Lawyers and Courts on Interim Management Tel: 604 602 9000

The best Vancouver Wealthy Interim Business Management After Separation lawyers put protections in place immediately if their client does not have control of the family business after separation. Our win is frequently in J.W.L.P. v A.J.P., 2017 BCSC 1898 (CanLII is frequently cited in BC Supreme Court.

Under the Family Law Act, spouses are entitled to family property and are responsible for family debt, regardless of their respective use or contribution (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P., 2017 BCSC 1898 (CanLII) para 77). On separation, each spouse has a right to an undivided half interest in all family property as a tenant in common (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 77). Family property broadly includes a share or an interest in a corporation, partnership, business, or a venture (Thiessen v Thiessen, 2025 BCSC 150 (CanLII) para 40; Thiessen v Thiessen para 41).

The Supreme Court is required by Section 91 of the Family Law Act to make an order restraining a spouse from disposing of any property at issue under the Act unless that spouse establishes that a claim made under the Act will not be defeated or adversely affected by the disposal of the property (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 78). To protect an applicant’s interest in property from being defeated or adversely affected, the court may make orders for the possession, delivery, safekeeping, and preservation of property, and may prohibit the other spouse from disposing of, transferring, converting, or exchanging into another form, property in which the applicant may have an interest (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 78).

Where one spouse effectively controls a business, even if the formal legal structure suggests otherwise, the court may extend restraining orders to the companies themselves to protect the other spouse’s interest (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 70, 72). For example, in J.W.L.P. v A.J.P., the court found that Mr. P. effectively controlled Holdco and, through its voting shares, BHWL, despite another individual being the sole director of BHWL (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 70, 72). The court determined that Mr. P. made significant decisions for the business himself, including major transactions (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 72).

A spouse may be entitled to monitor what occurs in companies that are the subject of their claim, and major decisions, such as the sale of significant assets, should not be carried out without their knowledge and approval until the trial is concluded (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 73). In J.W.L.P. v A.J.P., the court granted a restraining order that limited its scope to specific entities and included provisions for financial disclosure and approval of significant expenditures (J.W.L.P. v A.J.P. para 75).