NCBJ Report: Asset Protection Trusts--How to Make Them and How to Break Them

Asset Protection Trusts--How to Make Them and How to Break Them examined a phenomenon emerging in the laws of several states, including Nevada.   This panel was moderated by Ron Peterson of Jenner & Block with Neal Levin of Freeborn & Peters, Judith Greenstone Miller of Jaffe Raitt Heuer  Heuer & Weiss, P.C., Rebecca Hume of Kobre & Kim, and Judge Brian F. Kenney of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

According to Judith Greenstone Miller, there are now seventeen states that allow Debtor Asset Protection trusts ("DAPs").    Some states have a statute of limitations as short as eighteen months to challenge a DAP while others may allow up to four years or more for an existing creditor that did not have knowledge of the transfer.   Some states require an affidavit of solvency.

Michigan was the seventeenth state to allow DAPs in March 2017 and amended the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) to exempt a "qualified disposition."    There are also variations in state law between those following the Uniform Fraudulent Transactions Act (UVTA) and the Uniform Voidable Transfers Act.   While UFTA does not have a specific choice of law provision, UVTA does.

Ms. Miller explained that DAPs require giving up control and that high net worth indiiduals don't like to give up control.    DAPs are attractive to individuals with plenty of assets now who fear future liabilities such as doctors.

In Michigan, DAPs must be irrevocable.   The Trustee must reside in Michigan.   The settlor must execute an affidavit that the transfer of assets into the trust will not render them insolvent and that they are not subject to pending litigation other than as described.     They may retain the power to direct investments and request distributions of income and principal although they cannot demand a distribution.   The sole means to challenge a DAP is to bring an action under the UVTA by clear and convincing evidence.      The statute of limitations in Michigan is shortened from six years to two years, although it starts at the time of the qualified disposition.   If a claim arises after the disposition, the statute of limitations is two years from when the claim arises.   Beyond the state statute of limitations, the only resort is to Sec. 548 of the Bankruptcy Code for actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud.   If a transfer is set aside, the property reverts to the settlor and only to the extent necessary to satisfy the claim.  

Neal Levin described Nevada's DAP law, which he described as an "absolute shield" for assets.  It has been around since 1999 and has a two year statute of limitations with a six month discovery rule.  There is no requirement for an affidvait of solvency.   The burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, the settlor retains incredible control over the trust assets.   He said that the only exception to the Act's protections is an action under the UVTA.

Judge Brian F. Kenney described the Virginia law as being one of the least protective.  He said that his state statute says that a transfer is not voidable solely because is was made to a self-settled trust without consideration.   As with the law of several other states, Virginia's statute contains a provision shielding professionals who structure a transfer from liability.    However, at the same time, Virginia adopted a statute providing for sanctions against any party within its jurisdiction who transfers assets with knowledge of a judgment.   Thus, there is some conflict in the law.

Rebecca Hume came all the way from the Cayman Islands to discuss foreign asset protection trusts which she described as a war between the world and the debtor's assets with a gate that only the debtor has a key to.   She described the Cook Islands as the worst jurisdiction for creditors with the Island of Nevis close behind.   The law of the Cayman Islands provides that issues relating to Cayman Islands trusts must be governed by the law of the Cayman Islands and that any order of a foreign court attempting to assert control over a Cayman Islands trust would be unenforceable.   In the Cook Islands, a claim must be brought within two years of when the transfer was made.   The creditor must prove a fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.   Further, the creditor must hire a lawyer in the Cook Islands and may not enter into a contingent fee arrangements.   She said she knew of only one case where a Cook Islands Trust was set aside. 

Judge Kenney said that Sec. 548(e) was added to the Code to address the problem of DAPs.   He said that it allows a ten year lookback for a self settled trust and requires an intent to hinder, delay or defraud.    This standard relies on the traditional badges of fraud analysis.     The Trustee has two years to commence an action but that the statute could be equitably tolled.

Ron Peterson asked Judge Kenney what he could do to a debtor who was ordered to repatriate assets from a Cook Islands Trust but refused to do so.   He said that under Sec. 105(a), he has the power to enforce his orders.   He said that as a practical matter, incarceration for civil contempt will often be referred to the U.S. District Court because the District Court has more tools available to deal with incarceration.   In one case, a debtor named Sala raised the defense of impossibility but the Court ruled that where is the impossibility is self-created, the defense would be rejected.   He described it as a game of chicken between the debtor who is willing to sit in jail without giving up his funds and the Court that keeps him there.

In U.S. v. Grant, Neal Levin said that the settlor's widow raised the impossibility defense saying "I asked for the money back but they said no."   The Court found that this was not sufficient to purge the contempt. 

Mr. Levin pointed out that one-third of the world's wealth is kept in off-shore jurisdictions.    He said that it was important to work with professionals in the affected jurisdiction.  

Ms. Hume said that many offshore jurisdictions allow the settlor to retain great control over the trust and would only impose an independent trustee when "things get dicey."  She said that settlors frequently retain the policy to change the trustee.   She pointed to a court of appeals decision which required a settlor to disclose where trusts were located and what was within them.   She described a Privy Council decision where a settlor had a power to revoke the trust but refused to exercise that power.   The Council held that it could appoint a receiver over the power of revocation which allowed the trust to be revoked and the money collected.

Mr. Levin talked about how most wire transfers pass through New York banks.   Because these banks are in the United States, the U.S. Courts have jurisdiction over them and they can be brought into the case. 

Ron Peterson pointed out that the U.S. has treaties with countries such as Switzerland and that the U.S. Attorney can be brought to enforce the treaty in limited instances.

Mr. Levin pointed out that on the other side are "the forces of evil" such as foreign judges who view their responsibility as limited solely to enforce their laws and foreign professionals who want to protect their fees.    He also said that the United States is now considered to be the largest recipient of offshore funds as foreign citizens are transferring funds to DAPs in the United States.  He described the problem of professionals helping people conceal their assets as a "pervasive problem."

Ms. Hume pointed out that the Cayman Islands are now parties to various statutes requiring disclosures of cash transfers so that there is greater transparency and less advantage to hiding assets in the Cayman Islands.

 The main take-away from the panel was that when dealing with DAPs or offshore trusts, the key is to engage qualified professionals who understand the local law in order to avoid committing malpractice whether trying to set up one of these vehicles or challenging one.