By Frank Arndt, founding partner, Paradigm Family Law LLP | 9 November 2026
On Sunday, one of the richest founders in the world told his staff he had cheated on his wife. “I was unfaithful to my wife,” wrote Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang, in an internal message reported by the Financial Times. By Monday morning, Nvidia’s Frankfurt-listed shares had fallen more than 6 per cent in early trading.
Nobody has announced a divorce, and this article is not about the Huang family. But the story raises the question every betrayed spouse asks first. Does an affair change the divorce settlement?
In England and Wales, the short answer is almost never. A fictional couple shows why. It also shows what really decides the outcome when a founder’s fortune is at stake.
H and W married around 40 years ago. They have two adult children. H founded a technology company during the marriage. Today, the shares he holds directly and through family structures have an illustrative market value of US$150 billion. If they divorce, what could W receive? And how could H pay it without selling a substantial stake in the company?
H and W are fictional, and the figures are illustrative. The legal analysis assumes that the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction.
Does an affair change a divorce settlement in England?
Not on its own. Since April 2022, no one in England and Wales needs to prove adultery, or any other fault, to divorce. The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 replaced the old fault-based facts. A simple statement that the marriage has broken down irretrievably is now enough. If H had an affair, W would not need to mention it. See section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
The financial claim is a separate process. Here, the court can take conduct into account only where it would be inequitable to disregard it. That threshold comes from section 25(2)(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and infidelity alone almost never meets it. The court does not use the settlement to punish a spouse for breaking a promise.
Money is different. Evidence that H deliberately spent or hid substantial assets would raise a real financial question. The court could treat dissipated money as if H still had it, sometimes called an “add-back”. To get there, W would need evidence of what was spent, where it came from and in what circumstances.
So what does matter at US$150 billion? Almost everything else.
A US$150 billion shareholding: what is actually available?
At this scale, a 10 per cent fall in the share price would wipe US$15 billion off the holding. This week showed how quickly a single headline can move a share price. Even at a stable price, selling a large block could move the market. Tax, trading restrictions and the timing of any sale can all affect how much cash the shares could produce.
Start with the ownership. H holds some shares personally. Others sit in trusts and holding companies. H might have voting power over shares without having the right to take the sale proceeds. The trust deeds, company records and details of past distributions would help establish what H and W each own. They would also show what each can access, and which assets might fund a settlement.
For W, the crucial distinction is between the value on a statement and the amount she could actually receive.
Would W get US$75 billion?
US$75 billion is half of the illustrative gross share value. An English court would first identify the parties’ financial resources and decide which property is subject to sharing. The Supreme Court addressed this in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26. The sharing principle applies to matrimonial property, broadly the fruits of the marriage. Where the wealth came from, and how the couple used it, both matter. Legal title alone does not decide how the court will treat it. Property outside the sharing principle can still be relevant to meeting needs.
In our example, H founded the company during a long marriage. That timing gives W a strong basis to argue that the business value falls within the sharing exercise. Evidence of how H acquired and held particular interests would still matter. Suppose W took primary responsibility for raising the children while H built the company. That contribution to family life counts alongside his financial one.
The court considers the duration of the marriage, each spouse’s resources and needs, and their contributions, among other factors. These are set out in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Could H argue his contribution was too special to share equally?
At this level of wealth, expect him to try. English law allows a departure from equal sharing where one spouse has made a truly exceptional contribution. The Court of Appeal accepted the principle in Charman v Charman (No 4) [2007] EWCA Civ 503. It then set a very high bar in Gray v Work [2017] EWCA Civ 270.
Great wealth alone is not enough. H would need to show a contribution so unusual that ignoring it would be unfair to him. W would answer that 40 years of family life made his work possible. Courts approach these arguments cautiously, because they risk undervaluing the contribution of the spouse who stayed at home.
Could a prenup cover a company that did not exist at the wedding?
Suppose H and W signed a prenup when both earned salaries and neither owned a business. Forty years later, the wording would matter. A clause about assets each brought into the marriage could work very differently from one that covers future businesses. The best agreements name businesses founded during the marriage, future equity awards, dividends and sale proceeds.
Under Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, an English court should uphold an agreement both spouses freely entered into, fully understanding its implications. The exception is where it would be unfair to hold them to it in the circumstances at divorce. Independent advice and financial disclosure help show what each spouse understood. The court would also ask what the agreement gives W after four decades, especially if she left paid work.
A carefully drafted agreement could let H keep voting shares while giving W a share of dividends or sale proceeds. It could also give her other assets she can use independently. They could agree to review the terms after a flotation, a sale or a major family change. Once married, they could address the same issues in a postnup.
How could H pay a settlement on this scale?
If H keeps the shares, W might receive liquid investments, cash from planned sales, or a lump sum in instalments. Deferred payments raise practical questions about security and what happens if H misses a payment. If W takes shares, she gains exposure to future growth and bears the risk of a fall. The terms would need to fix the valuation date, the transfer date and who bears any tax or price movement in between.
The company’s position would depend on the rights attached to the shares. A transfer could shift voting power if H’s holding is large enough. A major sale could raise market disclosure or trading issues. Holding companies raise a separate question. The court cannot simply treat company assets as H’s own, as the Supreme Court confirmed in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34. Both the company’s rules and the court’s powers under Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 would shape the options.
What if the shares and trusts are overseas?
The English court may hear H and W’s divorce under section 5 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973. Even so, a settlement involving overseas shares or trusts must work where those assets are held. The parties would need to consider whether an English order would be recognised or enforced abroad. They would also need to know what trustees can lawfully do. Local tax or securities rules may affect the transfers too.
Those answers could decide whether W should take assets outright or accept a secured payment over time.
So what matters more than the affair?
For H, the question is how to fund an award while keeping the stake he needs to run the business. For W, it is how to secure assets that do not depend on H’s future decisions or the share price. At this scale, the timing, security and form of payment can be as consequential as the headline number.
The affair may dominate the headlines. In an English courtroom, ownership, prenup wording and payment terms decide who gets what.
Specialist Advice on High-Value Divorce and Business Assets
At Paradigm Family Law, we advise founders and their spouses on high-value divorce, prenups and postnups. Our work covers settlements involving businesses, trusts and assets across jurisdictions. That includes share valuations, trust disclosure, special contribution arguments and enforcing orders abroad.
Have you discovered an affair? Are you a founder worried about what divorce could mean for your company? Take advice early. The decisions you make in the first weeks can shape the whole settlement.
Not every case needs to start with litigation. For an early, independent view of how a judge would approach your finances, our sister service What Would a Judge Say? provides a fixed-fee, judge-led written opinion, usually within six weeks. When betrayal makes every number feel personal, a neutral view brings the focus back to what a court would actually do.
Contact Paradigm Family Law for specialist advice on high-value divorce, business and shareholding assets, prenups and international financial settlements.
Call us on +44 (0) 203 637 4967 or visit paradigmfamilylaw.co.uk.
