How to Value a Company in a Divorce Context? Methods, Steps and Legal Considerations (France / Switzerland)

Introduction: When Corporate Finance Enters the Courtroom

The divorce of a couple who co-own a business is one of the most complex situations an independent valuation firm can encounter. It combines the technical rigour of financial analysis with the emotional charge of a family breakup — and it plays out in an arena where every figure will be scrutinised, contested, and must ultimately be defensible before a family court judge.

Business valuation in divorce proceedings is not merely a financial exercise: it is a legal act. The value determined will directly condition the calculation of compensatory allowances, the division of the matrimonial estate, the terms of any share buyout between spouses, and sometimes the fiscal treatment of the transfer. An error of CHF 500,000 in the valuation of a company worth CHF 3 million translates, after all adjustments, into a concrete patrimonial prejudice of several hundred thousand francs for one of the parties.

The challenge for the expert is to produce a figure that is simultaneously technically defensible, legally enforceable, and comprehensible to a judge who has no financial training. This triple requirement distinguishes divorce valuation from any other context.

As the French Court of Cassation regularly holds (Cass. civ. 1, 25 September 2013, n°12-14.293): "the value of company shares included in the marital estate must be determined at the date of dissolution of the matrimonial regime, by reference to their market value at that date." This principle — value at the date of dissolution, not at the date of marriage or any other reference point — structurally conditions the entire methodology.

This article presents the complete Hectelion methodology for business valuation in divorce proceedings, covering the legal framework in France and Switzerland, the applicable valuation methods by context, the most frequently contested points, two quantified case studies, and the specific role of the court-appointed or amicable expert.

Origins and Foundations

The integration of business shares into matrimonial estate division has its roots in the progressive recognition, by French and Swiss courts, that a company can constitute a patrimonial asset susceptible of division — not merely an economic activity. This recognition crystallised in French law with the application of article 1843-4 of the Civil Code to divorce proceedings, and in Swiss law with cantonal jurisprudence on the valuation of share interests held in companies.

In France, the reference doctrine is structured around two complementary instruments: the BOFIP recommendations on the valuation of non-listed company shares (applicable in a tax context but frequently cited as a methodological reference by courts), and the SFEV (Société Française des Évaluateurs) professional standards. In Switzerland, the CSI practitioners' method (Circular No. 28) is the explicit reference of the Federal Tax Administration (AFC) and of the cantonal courts. Further reading: business valuation approaches and methods.

Would you like to have your business, its assets or financial instruments valued, sell it, or conduct a financial due diligence?

‍ Hectelion handles all these operations in France and Switzerland — business sale, divorce, shareholders agreement, taxation, assets, financial instruments and financial due diligence.

‍→ Book a call — 30 minutes, confidential

Definition: What Does "Valuing a Business in a Divorce" Mean?

Valuing a business in a divorce means determining the market value of the shares or partnership interests held by one or both spouses, at the reference date defined by the applicable matrimonial regime, for the purpose of integrating this value into the calculation of the divisible assets or the compensatory allowance.

Several distinctions are fundamental:

The value of the shares vs the value of the business: the value of the shares accounts for applicable discounts (minority, illiquidity, key-person dependency), whereas the enterprise value is the total economic value of the business. These two figures can diverge by 20 to 40%. See our article on premiums and discounts in business valuation.

The reference date: in France, the value is assessed at the date of dissolution of the matrimonial regime (generally the date of legal separation proceedings under art. 265 Civil Code, or the date of the divorce petition). In Switzerland, the date of marital dissolution (art. 204 CC) is the reference for acquired property liquidation.

The nature of the asset: in France, under the community property regime, shares acquired during the marriage are in principle community property — unless acquired by inheritance or gift. Under the separation of assets regime, only shares belonging to the requesting spouse are included. In Switzerland, acquired property (bénéfices acquis / Errungenschaft) and personal assets are distinguished, with the participation in surplus calculated at dissolution.

Comparative Legal Framework: France and Switzerland

France

The valuation of shares in a divorce is governed by article 1843-4 of the Civil Code, which provides that where the articles of association or a shareholders agreement stipulate that a partner may be required to cede their shares, their value is determined, failing agreement, by an expert appointed by the president of the commercial court in chambers proceedings. In a divorce context, this mechanism is invoked when the two spouses cannot agree on the value of shares one will buy back from the other.

Key dates: The date of dissolution of the matrimonial regime is the date of legal separation proceedings (ordonnance de non-conciliation, art. 262-1 Civil Code as amended by the 2019 reform) or the date of the divorce petition for amicable divorce. The valuation must reflect "the market value" at this date (Cass. civ. 1, 25 September 2013, n°12-14.293).

Matrimonial regimes: Under community property (community of acquired goods, art. 1400 et seq. Civil Code), shares acquired during the marriage are community property; the community's share is subject to division. Under separation of assets (art. 1536 et seq. Civil Code), each spouse retains their own assets; valuation is relevant to calculate the compensatory allowance (art. 270 et seq. Civil Code) based on the difference in standards of living.

Switzerland

In Switzerland, business valuation in divorce is governed by the Civil Code (CC) within the framework of the participation in surplus regime (bénéfice acquis / Errungenschaft, art. 196 et seq. CC), which applies by default. The operating company shares held in the professional context are generally classified as acquired property (art. 197 CC) if acquired during the marriage. Their value is assessed at the date of marital dissolution (art. 214 CC) for the participation in surplus calculation.

The CSI practitioners' method (Circular No. 28) is the principal reference for cantonal courts: Practitioners' Value = (2 × Yield Value + 1 × Substantial Value) / 3. The yield value is capitalised at the rate published annually by the AFC (2024 rate: 8.75% for commercial companies). The substantial value corresponds to the revalued net asset value. This formula provides a compromise between profitability and asset value, well adapted to stable SMEs. For rapidly growing or loss-making companies, the DCF method is preferred. See our full analysis: business valuation: France vs Switzerland.

The Three Types of Valuation Expertise in Divorce

Applicable Valuation Methods by Context

The choice of valuation method in a divorce context is conditioned by three factors: the nature of the business (asset-intensive vs service-based), the accounting framework applicable (French GAAP / PCG, Swiss GAAP FER), and the context of the proceedings (amicable vs contentious).

The Practitioners' Method (Switzerland — CSI Circular No. 28)

This is the dominant method in Switzerland for stable SMEs. It is explicitly recognised by Swiss cantonal courts and the AFC. Its formula — (2 × Yield Value + 1 × Substantial Value) / 3 — balances profitability and asset value. The yield value is calculated by capitalising the average normalised earnings (EBITDA or net income) at the AFC reference rate (8.75% in 2024). The substantial value corresponds to the revalued net asset value. The strength of this method is its reproducibility and acceptance by judges: two experts applying it rigorously to the same data should obtain comparable results. Its limitation: it undervalues high-growth companies and overvalues companies in decline.

The DCF Method (Discounted Cash Flows)

Preferred for growth companies, technology businesses, or businesses with strong cash flow predictability. It discounts projected free cash flows at the WACC. The main sensitivity points in a contentious divorce context: the business plan (often challenged as too optimistic or too conservative depending on which party commissioned it), the WACC (the discount rate directly conditions the result — a 1-point increase in WACC reduces the valuation by 15 to 25% for a typical SME), and the terminal growth rate. The DCF is the most powerful method but also the most contestable in litigation: every assumption can be challenged. For this reason, it must be accompanied by an explicit sensitivity analysis (table showing valuations for a matrix of WACC and growth rate assumptions). See our complete guide to valuation methods.

The Comparable Transactions Method (EV/EBITDA)

Based on market multiples from comparable transactions. According to the Argos Index® (Q4 2025), the median EV/EBITDA multiple for unlisted European SMEs stands at 8.3x. This method requires a preliminary normalisation of EBITDA: restatement of the owner-manager's remuneration to market rate, exclusion of non-recurring items, restatement of mixed-use expenses (vehicle, travel). In a contentious divorce, the normalisation of the owner's remuneration is systematically the most contested point: the non-business-owning spouse's counsel will argue for the lowest possible normalised salary (to inflate EBITDA and therefore the value), while the business-owning spouse's counsel will argue for the highest market salary (to reduce EBITDA and the value).

The Adjusted Net Asset Value Method (ANAV)

Relevant for holding companies, real estate companies, and asset-intensive businesses. It revalues each asset at market value and deducts liabilities at their actual value. The main contested points in divorce: the valuation of real estate (independent expert or tax administration value?), the valuation of financial participations (market value or book value?), and the treatment of latent taxation on unrealised gains (deduction at the marginal rate or not). See our article on premiums and discounts in business valuation.

Get a first indicative estimate of your company's value

‍ Hectelion offers a free indicative valuation tool based on Franco-Swiss market data — no commitment required.

‍→ Access the indicative valuation tool

The Four Most Contested Points in Contentious Divorce Valuations

1. Owner's Remuneration

This is systematically the most contentious point. The non-business-owning spouse's counsel argues for a low normalised salary (to maximise EBITDA and therefore the value); the business-owning spouse's counsel argues for a high market salary (to reduce EBITDA). The expert must independently determine the market replacement cost for the role performed: sector, size, geographical zone, level of responsibility. Reference sources: APEC salary surveys (France), Seläry.ch (Switzerland), Michael Page salary guides. Divergences of CHF 100,000 on the normalised salary generate, at a 7x multiple, a CHF 700,000 divergence on the valuation.

2. The Reference Date

The valuation date is not always that of the hearing. In France, it is the date of the ordonnance de non-conciliation (or of the petition in case of amicable divorce). In Switzerland, it is the date of marital dissolution (art. 214 CC). If the proceedings drag on for 2 to 3 years (frequent in contentious cases), the company's value may have changed significantly. The expert must clearly document the reference date retained and, if necessary, explain why a more recent value is or is not relevant.

3. Applicable Discounts

The minority discount, illiquidity discount and key-person dependency discount are systematically contested by the non-business-owning spouse's counsel, who prefers to see the highest possible valuation. The expert must document each discount with precise methodological justification: empirical studies for the illiquidity discount (Duff & Phelps DLOM Guide, Damodaran), market analysis for the key-person dependency discount, shareholder agreement clauses for the minority discount. See our complete guide to premiums and discounts.

4. Treatment of Pension Fund Deficits

In Switzerland, a pension fund deficit (coverage ratio below 100%) constitutes a contingent debt of the company. Its treatment in the ANAV is contested: some experts deduct 100% of the theoretical deficit; others apply a probability of actual payment. The expert must document the chosen approach and its impact on the valuation.

Franco-Swiss Specificities

In cross-border situations — Franco-Swiss couple, company registered in one country with activities in both — the expert must navigate two simultaneous legal and tax frameworks. The applicable matrimonial regime (French or Swiss) is determined by the Rome III Regulation in France and by the Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes.

The tax treatment of a share transfer following a divorce differs significantly between France and Switzerland:

In France, a share transfer to the other spouse in the context of division is in principle exempt from capital gains tax (art. 150-0 A, II, 1° CGI) when it takes place as part of the dissolution of the matrimonial community. However, the latent tax on the gain built up during the marriage constitutes a passive to be deducted from the community's assets subject to division.

In Switzerland, a share transfer between spouses is in principle tax-neutral for income tax (art. 207a LIFD). Capital gains on private assets remain exempt (art. 16 al. 3 LIFD). However, if one of the spouses is classified as a professional securities trader (gewerbsmäßiger Wertschriftenhndler), the gain may be taxable. A tax ruling is recommended in complex cross-border situations.

Hectelion, positioned at the crossroads of French and Swiss M&A and valuation practice, can coordinate both frameworks within a single engagement. See our comparison: business valuation: France vs Switzerland.

Advantages and Limitations of an Independent Expert in Divorce

Advantages

An independent valuation report produced before proceedings accelerates resolution: parties who have a prior valuation statistically reach agreement faster and at lower cost. It protects both parties from being subject to an imposed judicial valuation, which is often more favourable to one side than a jointly commissioned amicable expert. It provides a common methodological basis that depersonalises the financial dispute. It avoids the escalating cost of two opposing experts whose reports diverge by 30 to 50% — a scenario that extends proceedings by 12 to 18 months.

Limitations

An independent report is based on the data available at the reference date: if significant information was concealed or falsified by the business-owning spouse, the value produced may be challenged. The expert produces a value, not a certainty: if one party challenges the assumptions retained, a counter-expertise or judicial expertise may be commissioned. The cost of the engagement (CHF/€ 5,000 to 20,000 for an SME) is an investment that must be weighed against the stakes.

Case Studies

Case 1 — Franco-Swiss Divorce: Community of Acquired Goods / Participation in Surplus

(Fictitious data)

Mr and Mrs X are divorcing. Mr X holds 100% of Company A SAS (France), a B2B services company. Mrs X holds 40% of Company B SA (Switzerland), a precision engineering firm. Matrimonial regime: community of acquired goods (France) for Company A; participation in surplus (Switzerland) for Company B.

Company A (French valuation):

Accounting EBITDA year N: €620k. After normalisation (owner's remuneration +€80k, non-recurring charge +€60k): Normalised EBITDA = €760k. Transaction multiples method: 7.0x × 760 = EV €5,320k. NFD: €300k. Equity Value: €5,020k (community property: €5,020k to be divided 50/50 = €2,510k each).

Company B (Swiss valuation — practitioners' method):

Average normalised net income over 3 years: CHF 380k. Yield Value = 380 / 8.75% = CHF 4,343k. Substantial Value (ANAV): CHF 2,800k. Practitioners' Value = (2 × 4,343 + 2,800) / 3 = CHF 3,829k. Value of Mrs X's 40% stake: CHF 1,532k. Applied minority discount (25%): CHF 1,149k. This amount is included in Mrs X's acquired property for the participation in surplus calculation.

Resolution: amicable expert appointed jointly by the parties. Report finalised in 6 weeks. Agreement reached 3 months later. Total expert cost: CHF 18,000 (paid jointly).

Case 2 — Contested Valuation: SME in High Growth

(Fictitious data)

Mr Y holds 100% of Company C SAS, a SaaS software publisher. Divorce proceedings. Accounting EBITDA year N: €180k. Revenue growth: +45% per year for 3 years. Mrs Y's counsel argues for a DCF valuation; Mr Y's counsel argues for a multiples valuation on current EBITDA.

DCF valuation (Mrs Y's position): 5-year business plan projecting €1.2m EBITDA in year 5, WACC 12%, terminal growth rate 3%. DCF enterprise value: €5,800k.

Multiples valuation (Mr Y's position): current EBITDA €180k × 10x (SaaS sector) = EV €1,800k. Less 30% illiquidity discount: €1,260k.

Independent expert's conclusion: triangulation between DCF (60% weighting given the growth profile) and multiples (40% weighting): €3,700k. Minority and illiquidity discounts not applicable (100% stake). Normalised owner's remuneration: €90k (market rate validated by two independent benchmarks). Final value retained by the court: €3,700k.

A Word from the Managing Director

Business valuation in divorce is the most demanding context we face at Hectelion. Not because of the technical complexity — which is real — but because of the human stakes involved in every figure we produce. Behind every valuation, there is a couple that is separating, a business that has sometimes been built jointly over twenty years, and financial consequences that will condition the next decades of two people's lives.

What we observe consistently: couples who commission a joint independent expert before proceedings begin resolve their financial disputes 2 to 3 times faster and at 3 to 4 times lower cost than those who wait for the court to appoint one. The figure is the same — what changes is the time lost and the legal fees incurred.

Our approach is always the same: produce a value that we can defend in front of any judge, any counter-expert, any opposing lawyer — with a methodology that is documented, sourced, and above all, fair to both parties. Independence is not a posture. It is the only thing that makes our report useful to both sides.

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D — Founder & Managing Director, Hectelion

FAQ — Business Valuation in Divorce

Which valuation method applies in a French divorce?

There is no single mandatory method. French courts require a "market value" at the date of dissolution of the matrimonial regime. In practice, the most used methods are EV/EBITDA comparables (with prior normalisation), DCF, and ANAV for holding companies. The BOFIP recommendations and SFEV standards provide the methodological reference framework.

What is the reference date for valuation in a Swiss divorce?

The date of marital dissolution (art. 214 CC), i.e. the date from which the spouses no longer jointly administer the acquired property. In practice, this is generally the date of the divorce petition or legal separation.

Is the practitioners' method (CSI Circular No. 28) mandatory in Switzerland?

No, but it is systematically applied by Swiss cantonal courts for stable SMEs. For high-growth companies or those with a particular asset structure, a DCF or ANAV approach may be preferred. The expert must justify the method chosen relative to the company's specific profile.

Can an independent expert be jointly mandated by both spouses?

Yes, and this is the approach Hectelion recommends. A joint mandate allows costs to be shared, reduces conflicts of interest, and produces a report that both parties have agreed to accept as the basis for discussion. It significantly accelerates proceedings.

What discounts apply in a divorce valuation?

The minority discount (15 to 40%), the illiquidity discount (DLOM, 20 to 40% for unlisted SMEs), and potentially a key-person dependency discount if the value of the business is highly dependent on one of the spouses. These discounts are systematically contested by the non-business-owning spouse's counsel — which is why rigorous documentation is essential. See our complete guide to premiums and discounts.

How is a Franco-Swiss business situation managed (company in one country, spouses in another)?

The applicable matrimonial regime is determined by the Rome III Regulation (France) or the Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 (Switzerland). Hectelion coordinates both valuation frameworks within a single engagement. See business valuation: France vs Switzerland.

What is the cost of an independent valuation in a divorce?

Between CHF/€ 5,000 and 20,000 for a standard SME (revenue CHF/€ 2M to 20M). This cost is to be weighed against the stakes: on a company worth CHF 5 million, a CHF 500,000 error in the valuation represents CHF 250,000 in patrimonial prejudice for one of the parties. Contact Hectelion for a tailored quote.

Conclusion: Business Valuation in Divorce — Technical Rigour and Human Stakes

Business valuation in divorce combines financial rigour, legal knowledge and human sensitivity. In France and Switzerland, the applicable frameworks — article 1843-4 of the Civil Code, CSI Circular No. 28 — define the methodological boundaries within which the expert must navigate. The most frequently contested points — normalisation of owner's remuneration, reference date, applicable discounts — require particularly precise documentation and justification.

At Hectelion, an independent advisory firm active in France and Switzerland, we conduct business valuation mandates in all divorce contexts: amicable expert jointly appointed by the parties, expert appointed at the request of a single party, court-appointed expert. Our Franco-Swiss positioning allows us to cover cross-border situations that single-jurisdiction firms cannot handle.

Contact us for an initial confidential discussion — 30 minutes, no commitment.

Interested in Business Valuation Training?

Hectelion offers training programmes in business valuation, combining theoretical frameworks, practical methodologies and concrete case studies drawn from real situations. Designed for business owners, entrepreneurs and finance professionals.

👉 Learn more about the training programme

Author

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D

Founder | Managing Director