Complex Structures 

user selected image

Many of the families we work with own investments and possessions across many different locations and asset classes. These can range from lifestyle assets such as cars, yachts and art to physical assets such as commercial and residential real estate and investment assets such as publicly traded shares and bonds, hedge funds and privately owned companies (either directly or through Private Equity funds).

This broad spread of asset types, and the location of them, demands the understanding, and co-ordination of, multi-jurisdictional tax advice, compliance reporting, and investment performance monitoring across all asset classes. Maxine Bodden Robinson was recently involved in just such a complex matter by which the trustee brought a successful category two Public Trustee v Cooper application (an application by trustees for the ‘blessing’ by the court of a ‘momentous’ decision which the trustees are proposing to make) and, an application to vary the trust – the first time the Cayman Islands court has applied the ‘no detriment’ test introduced by an amendment to section 72 of the Trusts Act in 2019.

Many families have generated their wealth through their own success in building family-owned businesses. This brings unique challenges, especially in situations where the next generation are coming through and might have different expectations or experiences from the founders of those businesses. IMG recognises this as a significant area of concern for families, and in particular patriarchs and matriarchs, so IMG works closely with families to develop and implement family charters, to help guide the next generation and provide comfort to the first generation.

IMG also has experience in dealing with multi-generational families where points of difference inevitably arise as families expand, beneficiaries marry and people move all over the world. Each problem requires its own solution and can take time and patience to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction.

Case Studies

IMG was appointed as trustee of a trust that held a significant majority shareholding in a substantial onshore business with thousands of employees.

A significant asset of the trust, accounting for a large proportion of the trust’s balance sheet. The business was previously run by the settlor as CEO/managing director, who then died leaving the company to be run by a board of two people: one long-time executive director/COO and a non-executive director.

The anti-Bartlett clause in the trust deed allowed us as trustee to distance ourselves from the running of the business, even though it was the main trust asset. So the question arose, could we rely on this clause in good faith, with the potential for the business to flounder for want of proper management? We decided that we could not rely on the Anti-Bartlett clause, because we had concerns over the proper management of the business. We therefore had to step in and insist upon the appointment of a majority of non-executive directors. We engaged a recruitment agency to prepare a shortlist of excellent candidates and we left the ultimate selection decisions to the new CEO. Once the additional directors had been appointed, and the management of the company had been placed on a firm footing, we withdrew from oversight of the affairs of the company.

We also offer the following specialisms: