What I am** and should I be the appointor?

Today’s post considers the above-mentioned topic in a ‘vidcast’.

As usual, an edited transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view it is below.

The Richstar case has featured in many previous posts. As usual, if you would like access to those posts, please contact me.

In terms then of who should be an appointor, despite what Richstar says, which was that the appointor is highly critically important from an asset protection perspective, that’s not actually the law. Richstar has been rebutted. Therefore, we would argue that in the ordinary course, it does not matter who the appointor is.

Now as with all trust areas, I would argue there is an exception to that general rule.

The exception to the general rule is do not set your client up to fail unnecessarily.

Therefore, you want to have at least two other things on your list when you’re looking at an appointor I would argue at the bare minimum.

Point number 1, make sure that embedded into the trust instrument, there is an automatic disqualification of the appointor if they commit any act that allows the court to look at the act. By crafting the provisions that way, you do a couple of things.

First, it sets the rules of the game before the trust is even started. It’s therefore almost impossible for anyone to argue that that was some sort of inappropriate strategy because it was there from the very start.

The second thing is that if any court comes in, the bankruptcy court, the family court, etc., before they come in, the deed self-executes and makes sure that the appointor is automatically removed.

The next point is just thinking about who you actually want as your appointor. Maybe it isn't the smartest thing to have the at-risk individual. Not because of itself is going to cause the trust assets to be exposed, but why even raise a question when you can actually avoid the issue.

The one thing I would flag on that is that having a non-at-risk person as appointor can be a lot easier said than done. The appointor has the ability to hire and fire the trustee in its complete discretion.

The person needs to be someone you can completely trust in order to deliver that role in a way that actually is going to align with what the people behind the trust are actually striving for.

As always thanks to the Television Education Network for the video content here.

** for the trainspotters, the title here is riffed from the Edie Brickell song ‘What I am’.

Don't believe the hype - trusts do protect assets

Previous posts have considered the true impact of arguably the highest profile decision in relation to trusts and asset protection, being the decision in Richstar (that is - Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 6) (2006) 153 FCR 509). The most recent post is available here - Richstar – Another Reminder

More recently the decision in Fordyce v Ryan & Anor; Fordyce v Quinn & Anor [2016] QSC 307 has again reinforced that the reasoning in Richstar, at least as it relates to the ability to attack assets held via a discretionary trust, is at best questionable.

In particular, the case confirms succinctly as follows -

'It is difficult to accept as a principle of reasoning that a beneficiary’s legal or de facto control of the trustee of a discretionary trust alters the character of the interest of the beneficiary so that it will constitute property of the bankrupt if the beneficiary becomes a bankrupt.

To the extent that Richstar might be thought to support such a principle, it has not been followed or applied subsequently and it has been criticised academically.'

As set out in previous posts, there are numerous decisions now that reached a similar conclusion.

A selection of the subsequent cases is summarised below. If you would like access to the full copies of any of the decisions mentioned in this post, please email me:

1. Tibben & Tibben [2013] FamCAFC 145 - The only ‘entitlement’ of the beneficiaries under the Deed of Settlement was a right to consideration and due administration of the trust: Gartside v Inland Revenue Commissioners; 
2. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ekelmans [2013] VSC 346 - The applicant relied on the decision in Richstar to contend that the cumulative effect of the role and entitlement of Leopold Ekelmans under the trust instruments amounted to a contingent interest in all of the assets of the trust, making those assets amenable to a freezing order as if the assets of Leopold Ekelmans. The Court found that the applicant could not in this matter rely on Richstar; 
3. Hja Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors & Act Revenue Office (Administrative Review) [2011] ACAT 91 – notwithstanding that beneficiaries under a ... discretionary trust have some rights, such as the right to have the trust duly and properly administered, generally a beneficiary of a discretionary trust, who is at arm's length from the trustee, only has an expectancy or a mere possibility of a distribution. This is not an equitable interest which constitutes "property" as defined; 
4. Donovan v Sheahan as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Donovan [2013] FCA 437 - a beneficiary of a non-exhaustive discretionary trust has no assignable right to demand payment of the trust fund to them (and nor have all of the beneficiaries acting collectively) and that the essential right of the individual beneficiary of a non-exhaustive discretionary trust is to compel the due administration of the trust; 
5. Simmons and Anor & Simmons [2008] FamCA 1088 – the court and parties referred to Richstar on a number of occasions and confirmed that a beneficiary has nothing more than an expectancy. 

As a separate comment - the popularity of last week's post leveraging a 1980s pop reference has been used again, perhaps with a slightly more obscure song, Public Enemy's 'Don't believe the hype' is linked here - https://www.vevo.com/watch/public-enemy/dont-believe-the-hype/USDJM0400011

Finally, many of the themes in this post will be featured in our upcoming half and full day Estate Planning Roadshow being held in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.

Download the brochure here.

Watch the promo video below.

Image courtesy of Shutterstock

Richstar – Another Reminder

Earlier posts have looked at various aspects of the leading trust case of Richstar – see -

Impact of Richstar on discretionary trusts

Scope of the Richstar decision

As set out in earlier posts, and with thanks to the Television Education Network, today’s post considers some related practical issues in relation to this case in a ‘vidcast’ at the following link - https://youtu.be/pk9xWWtLPgE

As usual, an edited transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view it is below –

The Richstar case is out of Western Australia from 2006.

It was a decision that appeared to potentially open up the floodgates in terms of how trusts would be considered from a bankruptcy perspective, and potentially see the assets inside a trust would be treated in the same way as they are under the family law regime and therefore, potentially be exposed on bankruptcy.

The Richstar decision was driven by an ASIC court case, effectively seeking a freezing order across all of the assets of the trust.

The argument being that there was such a high level of control available to the person that had gone bankrupt because they were the appointor or principal of the trust, they owned all the shares in the trustee company, they were director of the trustee company and they historically received distributions to themselves personally. The combination of all these things was enough for the court to hold that the trust was just a shell.

In other words the court held the trust was actually just a brilliant disguise for what was actually going on.

There's been at least another three or four cases after Richstar that say the conclusion in Richstar is not good law. That is – the court can't take the family law principles and put them into the Bankruptcy Act. They're completely different regimes and it's not appropriate.

So what is the reason we're still speaking about Richstar when it was a decision of a sole judge in Western Australia in 2006?

The reason is that the sole judge is now the Chief Justice of the High Court. Therefore as much as there are a number of the cases, particularly in New South Wales, that say Richstar is bad law and something to ignore, there's still that heritage or residual issue that the Chief Justice of the High Court made that decision. There is thus a risk that the courts might revisit that in another context at some point in the future.

Cases that have considered Richstar

As set out in many earlier posts, the Richstar case was decided in 2006, and yet, it continues to receive significant attention.

Interestingly, there has not been a substantive case that has accepted the conclusions in Richstar, and indeed, there are now many cases that have effectively rejected the core aspects of the decision in Richstar.

A selection of the subsequent cases is summarised below. If you would like access to the full copies of the decision, please email me:

1. Tibben & Tibben [2013] FamCAFC 145 - The only ‘entitlement’ of the beneficiaries under the Deed of Settlement was a right to consideration and due administration of the trust: Gartside v Inland Revenue Commissioners;
2. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ekelmans [2013] VSC 346 - The applicant relied on the decision in Richstar to contend that the cumulative effect of the role and entitlement of Leopold Ekelmans under the trust instruments amounted to a contingent interest in all of the assets of the trust, making those assets amenable to a freezing order as if the assets of Leopold Ekelmans. The Court found that the applicant could not in this matter rely on Richstar;
3. Hja Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors & Act Revenue Office (Administrative Review) [2011] ACAT 91 – notwithstanding that beneficiaries under a ... discretionary trust have some rights, such as the right to have the trust duly and properly administered, generally a beneficiary of a discretionary trust, who is at arm's length from the trustee, only has an expectancy or a mere possibility of a distribution. This is not an equitable interest which constitutes "property" as defined;
4. Donovan v Sheahan as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Donovan [2013] FCA 437 - a beneficiary of a non-exhaustive discretionary trust has no assignable right to demand payment of the trust fund to them (and nor have all of the beneficiaries acting collectively) and that the essential right of the individual beneficiary of a non-exhaustive discretionary trust is to compel the due administration of the trust;
5. Simmons and Anor & Simmons [2008] FamCA 1088 – the court and parties referred to Richstar on a number of occasions and confirmed that a beneficiary has nothing more than an expectancy.

Until next week.

Future of TDTs Post Richstar

As set out in earlier posts, and with thanks to the Television Education Network, today’s post addresses the issue of ‘Future of TDTs Post Richstar’ at the following link - http://youtu.be/fUe8aX5DghI

As usual, a transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view the presentation is below –

The reality is that even despite decisions such as Richstar, testamentary trusts have always been a very strong vehicle from asset protection perspective.  

They're not a recent vehicle - they go right back into early English law, over hundreds of years.  While there has undoubtedly been an amount of white noise around them in recent times, the reality is that they are by far and away the most robust structure from an asset protection perspective. 

Importantly, they also ‘tick the box’ in terms of issues such as flexibility, tax planning and overall estate and succession planning objectives can almost always be achieved via a tailored testamentary trust.  

Ultimately, despite the Richstar decision, it is absolutely the case that testamentary trusts remain the choice structure for most estate planning exercises.

Until next week.

Important considerations when establishing a TDT

As set out in earlier posts, and with thanks to the Television Education Network, today’s post addresses the issue of ‘Important considerations when establishing a TDT’ at the following link - http://youtu.be/D8HwIGVu8kk

As usual, a transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view the presentation is below –

Probably the two main components, although there's a myriad of things to be taken into account, but the two main components in light of Richstar would be firstly around control issues.

Particularly looking at things like who the trustee is of the trust, if there's going to be a corporate trustee, which is not unusual nowadays in relation to testamentary trusts, who will be the directors of the corporate trustee, who will be the shareholders of it, will there be  any restrictions or prohibitions on who can fulfil those roles. 

Similarly in that control context, exactly who will have ultimate control if there's going to be an appointor power?  So that would be the first main category and obviously there's a range of issues that sit around that.

The second category is exactly how regulated the trust is going to be in a mechanical sense in terms of the provisions of the will.  The particular things that advisers should be focusing on are issues like:

(a)         are there automatic disqualifications for particular roles;

(b)         if there are automatic disqualifications, do they apply permanently, or is it just during a period where a particular beneficiary or a particular appointor is in strife from creditors. 

Combining these two core components and there’s obviously a range of issues in between them, but generally as long as you can get those two broad silos right, that will set a good framework for a very strong structure. 

Until next week.

Scope of the Richstar decision

As set out in earlier posts, and with thanks to the Television Education Network, today’s post addresses the issue of ‘Scope of the Richstar decision’ at the following link -  http://youtu.be/N2VpKrws93c

As usual, a transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view the presentation is below –

It’s fair to say Richstar is seen as probably the high watermark in relation to how the assets of a trust may be exposed in the context of some sort of bankruptcy litigation. Interestingly, it has remained almost as an outlier decision.

There really haven't been any decisions that have supported the landing the court reached in relation to Richstar. On top of that, the cases like Smith which have come down since Richstar, effectively completely ignore Richstar and go to the extent of saying it doesn't actually represent good law.

Ultimately, pragmatically and practically what the position seems to be is as long as a trust is structured appropriately it will provide a very good level of asset protection from creditors and should be seen as probably the choice structure in an estate planning exercise under a will - in other words, the use of a testamentary discretionary trust - in order to provide an adequate level of protection.

Until next week.

Impact of Richstar on discretionary trusts

As set out in earlier posts, and with thanks to the Television Education Network, today’s post addresses the issue of ‘Impact of Richstar on discretionary trusts’. If you would like a link to the video please email me.

As usual, a transcript of the presentation for those that cannot (or choose not) to view the presentation is below –

Probably the most interesting part of Richstar is that in some respects counter-intuitively, it confirms that trusts remain a very robust structure from an asset protection perspective.

If you actually take a helicopter view of where the court landed in Richstar, it certainly supports this idea that just because an individual happens to be the trustee and beneficiary and appointor will not of itself mean that the trust is ignored and that the assets of the trust will automatically be deemed to be those of the relevant individual.

In contrast however, and the flipside to this argument is that if you do fulfil a number of those roles and the court feels as though that’s enough in combination to create a scenario where a person is effectively the alter ego of the trust, then indeed the trust structure will not provide you any asset protection and the assets will be potentially exposed.

Until next week.

Image credit: Jasper Nance cc

Why do so many people still talk about Richstar?

The interest from recent posts about accessing assets of a family trust on marriage breakdown reminded me of the Richstar decision.

It has been a few years since the very well publicised decision in Richstar was handed down. The decision does however remain an interim one and there does not seem to be any clear indication as to if or when proceedings might be restarted.

For those unfamiliar with the exact decision of Richstar, please email me and I can provide a summary.

While there have been a number of cases that have criticised various aspects of Richstar, it still seems to be generally the case that most commentators strongly recommend that the broad principles in Richstar be considered as part of any trust structuring exercise (whether it be the establishment of a new trust or the variation of a pre-existing trust).

Pragmatically, it may also be that part of the reason that Richstar has remained so relevant despite the fact that it is only an interim decision of a single judge from Western Australia is that the judge involved has now gone on to become the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Until next week.