U.S. & International Asset Protection and Estate Planning for High-Risk Professionals and Global Entrepreneurs
In this video, Max Dilendorf, founder of Dilendorf Law Firm, explains how individuals and business owners can protect assets in an increasingly aggressive legal and regulatory environment through sophisticated U.S. and international planning strategies.
Dilendorf Law Firm represents U.S. and non-U.S. clients worldwide, including doctors, surgeons, physicians, entrepreneurs, real estate developers, architects, and other high-risk professionals who require advanced asset protection and long-term wealth preservation.
We also advise international clients moving businesses or investments to the United States, providing cross-border tax planning, tax structuring, and U.S. business formation services.
The video discusses both onshore and offshore asset protection solutions, including:
U.S. asset protection trusts and dynasty trusts in favorable jurisdictions such as Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, and South Dakota
Offshore trust and holding structures in jurisdictions including the Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Nevis, and the United Arab Emirates
Integrated estate planning for families with U.S. and international assets
Compliant planning for U.S. and foreign real estate ownership
Max also addresses the firm’s extensive experience in crypto law and digital asset protection, including secure custody strategies and crypto-related litigation, and how digital assets can be incorporated into a broader asset protection and estate planning framework.
Whether you are a U.S. professional seeking protection from litigation risk, or an international business owner navigating U.S. tax and compliance rules, this video outlines how a carefully structured, fully compliant global “Plan B” can help safeguard wealth across borders.
Contact Us
If you are considering U.S. or international asset protection, estate planning, or cross-border business structuring, contact Dilendorf Law Firm for a confidential consultation.
Our team works with clients in the United States and internationally to develop compliant, strategic solutions tailored to complex risk profiles and global assets.
Domestic Asset Protection Trusts (“DAPTs”) are often criticized as ineffective or vulnerable to creditor attack—especially when the trust creator lives outside the state where the trust is formed.
A recent decision from the Delaware Court of Chancery, however, shows that when properly structured and administered, a Delaware DAPT can withstand aggressive creditor challenges—even when the grantor is a non-resident and the trust indirectly holds valuable real estate.
The case, In the Matter of the CES 2007 Trust, involved a Michigan judgment creditor attempting to reach assets held through a Delaware trust structure. The court rejected those efforts in full and recommended dismissal at the pleading stage.
The Setup: A Michigan Grantor, a Delaware Trust, and Real Estate Held Through LLCs
The trust at issue was created in 2007, years before the underlying Michigan litigation. The grantor was not a Delaware resident. Instead, he used Delaware law to establish a self-settled asset protection trust.
Crucially, the trust did not own real estate directly. Instead, it owned membership interests in Delaware LLCs, and those LLCs owned the real property:
“In pertinent part, the Trust’s assets include a ninety-percent interest in three Delaware limited liability companies…”
Those LLCs, in turn, held real estate in Michigan and Colorado, including residential and commercial properties.
This structure mattered. Under Delaware law:
“A limited liability company interest is personal property. A member has no interest in specific limited liability company property.”
Because the trust owned LLC interests—not the real estate itself—the creditor’s attempt to collapse the structure failed.
Why the Court Refused to “Look Through” the LLCs
The creditor urged the court to disregard the LLC structure, treat the real estate as trust property, and characterize various historical transfers as fraudulent.
The court refused.
It held that it would be inappropriate to adjudicate real estate transactions at the LLC level in an action targeting the trust’s spendthrift provision:
“It would be inappropriate for this Court, through this type of proceeding, to adjudge the real estate transactions at the LLC level under the guise of potential fraudulent transfer sufficient to void the Trust’s spendthrift provision.”
The court went further:
“There are, simply put, no transfers to/from the Trust which would give rise to such an inquiry, and the Petitioner has pled no basis on which this Court should engage in veil piercing.”
This is a critical point for asset protection planning. DAPTs are evaluated based on what the trust owns—not what its subsidiaries own.
Out-of-State Grantors and Delaware Law
Another important aspect of the case is that the grantor was not a Delaware resident. The underlying judgment arose in Michigan. The real estate was located outside Delaware. Yet Delaware law governed the trust.
The court emphasized that Delaware expressly authorizes self-settled asset protection trusts, provided statutory requirements are met:
“In 1997, Delaware codified the ability to create Delaware self-settled asset protection, or qualified disposition, trusts.”
The trust satisfied those requirements, including:
Invocation of Delaware law
An enforceable spendthrift provision
Irrevocability
Transfers to a qualified trustee
The court found no statutory defect simply because the grantor lived elsewhere.
Trustee Independence and “Control” Arguments
A common creditor argument in DAPT cases is that the grantor retained too much control, effectively acting as the trustee in disguise.
That argument failed here.
The trust had an independent, qualified Delaware trustee. The grantor retained certain advisory powers—but Delaware law expressly permits this.
As the court explained:
“As advisor, the Respondent has the power to manage investments and delegate authority in accordance with his fiduciary duties.”
The court rejected the notion that advisory roles or business management automatically destroy asset protection, noting the statutory framework that allows settlors to appoint advisors and trust protectors.
Common Law Attacks: Public Policy and “Sham Trust” Claims
The creditor also attempted a fallback strategy: arguing that even if the trust met statutory requirements, it should be invalidated under common law doctrines.
Delaware courts recognize that avenue—but apply it narrowly.
The court reiterated that Delaware will not enforce a spendthrift trust that lacks economic reality and exists solely to allow the settlor to enjoy assets without restraint. But that was not the case here.
The court concluded:
“Neither doctrine supports the Petitioner’s request for relief in this action.”
And explicitly declined to recharacterize the structure:
“I decline to pierce down, treat the LLCs as shams or alter egos […] and convert the Trust’s membership interests therein to real property interests.”
The Outcome: Dismissal at the Pleading Stage
After reviewing the trust’s structure, governance, and statutory compliance, the court reached a clear conclusion:
“The Petitioner has failed to state a claim to void the spendthrift provision of the Trust or invalidate the Trust altogether.”
The recommended result:
“The Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Amended Petition should be granted, and the Amended Petition should be dismissed.”
What This Case Means for Asset Protection Planning
This decision reinforces a central principle we emphasize in our asset protection practice: effective planning is not about evasion—it is about structure, discipline, and statutory compliance.
When those elements are present, courts will respect the plan, even under aggressive creditor attack.
At Dilendorf Law Firm, we represent high-risk professionals and entrepreneurs whose personal and professional exposure makes proactive asset protection essential.
We represent physicians, surgeons, medical specialists, real estate developers, builders, business owners, and investors—individuals whose success often places them squarely in the crosshairs of litigation.
The Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in In the Matter of the CES 2007 Trust underscores several planning principles that are directly relevant to this clientele:
DAPTs can protect assets even when the grantor lives in another state
LLC layering matters—owning real estate indirectly can be decisive
Qualified trustees and statutory compliance are non-negotiable
Retained advisory powers do not automatically defeat asset protection
At Dilendorf Law Firm, we assist U.S. and non-U.S. clients protect a wide range of assets, including:
Income-producing and investment real estate
Operating businesses and development projects
Investment portfolios (public and private securities)
Cryptocurrency and digital assets
Cash reserves and alternative investments
This case also serves as a reminder that timing matters.
The trust in question was established years before the underlying litigation—an essential factor in surviving fraudulent transfer challenges.
Asset protection is most effective when implemented before a claim arises, not in reaction to one.
Ultimately, CES 2007 confirms what sophisticated planners already understand: well-designed Delaware DAPTs—combined with disciplined administration and proper entity structuring—remain a powerful tool for protecting wealth against future creditor risk.
For high-exposure professionals and investors, asset protection is not a luxury. It is a core component of long-term financial and estate planning—and when done correctly, courts will enforce it.
Contact Us
At Dilendorf Law Firm, we assist U.S. and international clients with sophisticated cross-border estate and asset protection planning. Our practice spans domestic asset protection trusts (DAPTs) in leading U.S. jurisdictions—such as Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, and South Dakota—as well as offshore trust structures in key jurisdictions including the Cook Islands, Nevis, and the Cayman Islands.
In each jurisdiction, we have developed a network of experienced trustees, financial institutions, and vetted legal partners who help ensure that every structure is professionally administered and compliant with local regulatory standards.
To discuss how our experience and network can support your planning goals, contact us at info@dilendorf.com or by calling us at 212.457.9797 to discuss your needs.
In Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions, an Illinois appellate court examined whether assets transferred into trusts—including an offshore Cook Islands trust—could be reached by a creditor enforcing a $1.5 million obligation.
Years earlier, the individual in the case made an irrevocable pledge to Rush University Medical Center. Later, he transferred substantially all of his assets into trusts.
At his death, the probate estate contained less than $100,000. Rush obtained a judgment against the estate and then pursued the trust assets, disputing that the transfers could be used to avoid payment of a known obligation.
The significance of the case lies not in the size of the pledge or the offshore element, but in the clarity with which the court explained how judges evaluate trusts when creditor rights and public policy are at stake.
Rather than focusing on drafting sophistication or jurisdiction, the court examined control, benefit, timing, and real-world effect—illustrating a consistent judicial theme: substance prevails over structure.
Courts Look at Results, Not Paperwork
Trusts are often described as technical planning tools whose effectiveness depends on formal compliance and careful drafting. In litigation, courts take a different approach. When creditor claims are involved, judges focus on what the planning actually accomplished.
As the trial court found: “As all the evidence clearly shows, he did everything that is possible to avoid the payment of the pledge.”
That finding frames the court’s analysis. The question was not whether a trust existed, but whether the trust functioned as a mechanism to avoid a known obligation.
Timing and Conduct Matter More Than Labels
Courts do not require an admission of intent. Instead, intent is inferred from conduct, timing, and outcome.
Based on the record, the court concluded:
“[…] he [Decedent] never intended to fulfill his pledge, and every course of action he took was with the intent to avoid the fulfillment of the pledge.”
This conclusion rested on the sequence of events and the movement of assets—not on technical deficiencies in the trust documents.
Judges Will Say It Plainly When Assets Are Moved to Block Creditors
When asset transfers effectively prevent a creditor from enforcing a valid claim, courts do not soften their language.
In unusually direct terms, the trial court stated:
“He even went so far as to defraud the hospital by transferring all of his assets into trusts so they could not be reached by the hospital.”
This language reflects an important reality: a trust does not neutralize conduct that a court views as improper or abusive.
Self-Settled Trusts Receive Heightened Scrutiny
One of Rush’s claims argued that the decedent’s transfer of assets into a self-settled trust should be treated as automatically invalid under earlier Illinois cases, including Crane and Barash.
As the appellate court summarized the Crane rule: “[…] self-settled spendthrift trusts are fraudulent and per se void and may be reached by other creditors.”
The appellate court, however, held that modern fraudulent-transfer claims must be pleaded under the Illinois Fraudulent Transfer Act and that this claim did not allege the statutory elements required by the statute.
Statutes Do Not Eliminate Substantive Review
The trustees argued that modern fraudulent-transfer statutes displaced common-law rules governing trusts. The appellate court rejected that position.
As the opinion makes clear:
“[…] the Fraudulent Transfer Act and the common law cannot exist in harmony.”
And further:
“If the legislature intended self-settled trusts to remain per se fraudulent under the common law, it would not have promulgated a statute defining the conditions required to prove a transfer was fraudulent.”
The court emphasized that statutory pleading requirements matter—but compliance with statutory form does not eliminate substantive judicial scrutiny.
Procedure Can Affect Outcomes, But It Does Not Resolve Substantive Risk
The appellate court reversed summary judgment on one of Rush’s claims because it relied solely on a per se common-law theory and did not allege the elements required under the Illinois Fraudulent Transfer Act.
As the court explained: “[…] a party is required to allege the elements contained in the Fraudulent Transfer Act to properly plead a fraudulent transfer claim.”
Importantly, the ruling addressed how the claim was pleaded, not whether the trust structure itself insulated assets from creditor scrutiny. A failure to plead statutory elements may defeat a claim on procedural grounds, but it does not render a challenged trust structure substantively immune from attack.
Judges Are Entitled to Draw Conclusions From the Record
The trustees also argued that the trial judge should have been disqualified for bias. The appellate court rejected that argument and clarified the governing standard.
Addressing the issue directly, the court explained:
“[…] [o]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceeding *** do not constitute a basis for a partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
Courts are expected to evaluate evidence and reach conclusions—including conclusions about intent and avoidance behavior.
The Practical Takeaway
Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions shows that courts do not approach trusts as planning instruments — they approach them as enforcement targets.
When a trust is challenged, judges reconstruct the transaction from the record and ask whether the structure actually changed economic reality or merely changed legal title. If a trust allows an individual to avoid a known obligation while preserving access to or benefit from the assets, courts are prepared to disregard formal structure and apply creditor-protection principles.
The case highlights that even carefully planned trusts may fail to block creditor claims when courts examine how the structure operates in practice.
Contact Us
At Dilendorf Law Firm, we assist U.S. and international clients with sophisticated cross-border estate and asset protection planning. Our practice spans domestic asset protection trusts (DAPTs) in leading U.S. jurisdictions—such as Wyoming, Alaska, Nevada, and South Dakota—as well as offshore trust structures in key jurisdictions including the Cook Islands, Nevis, and the Cayman Islands.
In each jurisdiction, we have developed a network of experienced trustees, financial institutions, and vetted legal partners who help ensure that every structure is professionally administered and compliant with local regulatory standards.
Each client’s circumstances are unique. Effective planning requires more than technical precision—it calls for a strategic and nuanced approach that anticipates both judicial scrutiny and creditor challenges. The Illinois appellate decision in Rush University Medical Center v. Sessions serves as a clear reminder that courts focus on substance over form, evaluating control, timing, and economic reality rather than mere formalities.
Whether establishing a self-settled domestic trust or layering international components across multiple jurisdictions, we guide clients through complex legal, regulatory, and practical considerations to build structures that are both defensible and effective.
To discuss how our experience and global network can support your planning goals, contact us at info@dilendorf.com or by calling us at 212.457.9797 to discuss your needs.
This video explains how U.S. courts treat foreign companies that own overseas real estate. It focuses on what this means for U.S. buyers with property in places like Dubai, Spain, and Italy.
The discussion uses Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barber, 85 F. Supp. 3d 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2015) as a case study. In that case, a Nevis LLC owned by a Florida resident was treated as intangible personal property located in Florida. That allowed creditors to reach the LLC interest under Florida law instead of Nevis law.
The same idea appears in other states. Jurisdictions like New York, California, and Texas let creditors obtain charging orders and, in some cases, foreclose or force a sale of LLC interests, especially in single‑member entities.
So, holding foreign real estate in your own name—or only through a foreign company—can leave it exposed to U.S. creditor claims.
The video stresses that planning must be legal and proactive. It does not endorse evading valid debts or making fraudulent transfers.
Next, the episode looks at better structures. It explains how U.S. Domestic Asset Protection Trusts in Alaska, Delaware, South Dakota, Nevada, and Wyoming can be used to own entities that hold foreign real estate.
It also covers offshore planning, including Cook Islands Trusts, for U.S. and international clients.
When these structures are set up early and with proper tax and reporting analysis, they can add separation between the person and the asset. They also help align foreign real estate with long‑term estate and wealth planning goals.
If you are buying or already own property abroad, the video encourages you to integrate that asset into a U.S. asset protection and estate plan, whether domestic or offshore.
To discuss your situation, you can contact Dilendorf Law Firm at info@dilendorf.com or 212.457.5757 for a confidential consultation.
Disclaimer: Attorney Advertising. This post and video are for general information only. They are not legal, tax, or investment advice and do not create an attorney–client relationship. Laws change, and results depend on specific facts and jurisdictions. Always consult your own legal and tax advisors before acting on any planning strategy.
In this video, Max Dilendorf explains why Family Limited Partnerships often provide stronger asset protection and estate planning benefits for New York real estate than single‑member or multi‑member LLCs. These same FLP structures can also be used to protect real estate holdings nationwide.
He shows how New York’s LLC statute and case law expose LLC owners to aggressive creditor remedies. Max contrasts this with the century‑old partnership framework behind FLPs, which offers charging‑order protection, tested rules, and better tools for holding real estate, crypto, and financial assets across the U.S.
Dilendorf Law Firm represents U.S. and non‑U.S. clients in asset protection strategies for U.S. and New York real estate using trusts and family limited partnerships. To discuss restructuring your holdings, contact us at 212.457.9797 or info@dilendorf.com.
In this video, Max Dilendorf, New York-based attorney and founder of Dilendorf Law Firm, explains a costly yet common mistake U.S. clients make when transferring appreciated assets into foreign trusts—unintentionally triggering capital gains taxes under IRS Section 684.
Learn the key differences between domestic trusts (such as Wyoming DAPTs) and offshore structures like Cook Islands and Cayman STAR Trusts, and why proper tax and legal planning is critical before moving assets abroad.
Dilendorf Law Firm represents U.S. and non‑U.S. clients, including high‑net‑worth individuals, global investors, tech founders, and cross‑border families, in matters involving corporate and tax planning, U.S. and foreign real estate purchases, asset protection, and trust formations in both U.S. and offshore jurisdictions.
Watch to understand how to structure your trust plan efficiently, avoid unnecessary tax exposure, and preserve your wealth across borders.
If you have questions or would like to schedule a trust planning consultation, contact us at 212.457.9797 or info@dilendorf.com.
New York attorney Max Dilendorf, practicing in crypto law since 2017, explains advanced asset protection strategies for tech founders and digital asset holders.
In this video, Max covers proven legal tools—Family Limited Partnerships (FLPs), Domestic Asset Protection Trusts (DAPTs), and offshore solutions like Cayman STAR Trusts—that safeguard startup equity, crypto, IP, and real estate.
Learn why these structures shield assets from lawsuits, creditors, and unforeseen events, and how Swiss and Liechtenstein trust companies add another layer of global security.
This guide is essential for U.S. and international founders who want to build effective estate plans and keep their digital wealth safe.
Want to protect your assets? Call Dilendorf Law Firm at 212.457.9797 or email md@dilendorf.com for asset protection, estate planning, and trust support.
Key Takeaways:
Cook Islands Trusts often fall short of providing robust security for U.S. crypto investors and founders.
U.S. courts may challenge the effectiveness of offshore trusts, potentially leading to legal and tax complications.
Dilendorf Law Firm offers proven solutions—including revocable living trusts, Family Limited Partnerships, and insured custody—for effective crypto asset protection.
Considerations with Cook Islands Trusts for Crypto Investors
Cook Islands Trusts are widely promoted online as highly secure estate planning and asset protection solutions for cryptocurrency holdings.
However, for many U.S. residents—especially tech founders and high-net-worth investors—these offshore structures present unique challenges. The trusts can be costly, restrictive, and, under certain circumstances, may draw scrutiny from U.S. courts and the IRS.
Major legal cases, such as FTC v. Affordable Media and In re Mortensen, demonstrate situations where U.S. judges have ordered the repatriation of assets held in Cook Islands Trusts and may even compel trust creators to comply. Bankruptcy clawback rules can also allow the undoing of asset transfers up to 10 years later.
Transferring appreciated digital assets into offshore trusts may result in unexpected tax consequences and expose investors to strict IRS reporting and compliance duties. Non-compliance can lead to substantial penalties.
Proven Alternatives for Crypto Asset Protection
Dilendorf Law Firm has successfully handled over 100 crypto arbitration cases, recovering millions for clients—including senior citizens—against major U.S. exchanges. We focus on legal strategies for protecting digital assets, including:
Revocable Living Trusts for Crypto
Easy integration of digital assets into estate plans for seamless wealth transfer and privacy.
Family Limited Partnerships
Flexible, cost-effective asset planning with centralized control and strong domestic legal backing.
Domestic Asset Protection Trusts
Structures in states like South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nevada offer reliable creditor protection and legal clarity.
Insured Crypto Custody
Combine legal entities with institutional-grade, insured custody options for increased peace of mind.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Cook Islands Trusts suitable for crypto asset protection?
U.S. residents considering these trusts should weigh all legal, tax, and compliance factors and explore other options.
What is the best trust for digital assets?
Domestic trusts, such as revocable living trusts and state DAPTs, can offer safe and effective protection for crypto assets.
How Dilendorf Law Firm Can Help
If you are a founder, investor, or family seeking attorneys who specialize in crypto asset protection, our firm brings deep legal expertise and a proven track record to help clients secure and preserve digital wealth.
Schedule a confidential consultation to discuss tailored solutions—including revocable living trusts and domestic legal structures—that align with your unique goals.
Reach out today to safeguard your crypto assets with trusted legal guidance:
Your strategy starts with a conversation—contact us now.
Attorney Max Dilendorf explains how U.S. courts treat Cook Islands asset-protection trusts, using the Ninth Circuit’s FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC (1999) as a guide.
In plain English, he covers what these trusts are, how “duress clauses” work, why judges order repatriation of assets, and how civil contempt and skepticism of “impossibility” defenses play out.
Key takeaways help families—and crypto holders—assess real enforcement risks before moving assets offshore. Dilendorf Law Firm offers confidential reviews of existing and proposed offshore structures.
describes trust provisions “intended to frustrate the operation of domestic courts,” Id. at 1232;
affirms that repatriation orders and civil contempt are available remedies when assets are placed offshore for a settlor’s benefit, Id. at 1231–32; and
expresses pronounced skepticism where a settlor claims to have retained no control while circumstances indicate otherwise, Id. at 1241–42.
What follows is a concise, professionally neutral synthesis anchored in the court’s own language.
How the Ninth Circuit framed the structure and its purpose
It also summarized the broader model at issue: “These ‘so-called asset protection trusts’ are designed to shield wealth by moving it to a foreign jurisdiction that does not recognize U.S. judgments or other legal processes, such as asset freezes.” Id. at 1240.
Court orders and immediate consequences
From the outset, the directives were unambiguous: “Both the temporary restraining order and the preliminary injunction required the Andersons to repatriate any assets held for their benefit outside of the United States.” Id. at 1232.
When the orders were defied, the panel endorsed the district court’s use of contempt:
“An old adage warns that a fool and his money are easily parted. This case shows that the same is not true of a district court judge and his common sense. After the Andersons refused to comply with the preliminary injunction by refusing to return their illicit proceeds, the district court found the Andersons in civil contempt of court.” Id. at 1231.
The “duress” sequence—and why impossibility failed
The opinion recounts how duress provisions operated when a U.S. order issued:
“In response to the preliminary injunction, the Andersons [sent] a letter to AsiaCiti on May 12, 1998, instructing AsiaCiti to provide an accounting of the assets held in the trust and to repatriate the assets to the United States to be held under the control of the district court. AsiaCiti thereupon notified the Andersons that the temporary restraining order was an event of duress under the trust, removed the Andersons as co-trustees under the trust because of the event of duress, and refused to provide an accounting or repatriation of the assets.” Id. at 1233.
Further attempts to substitute trustees met the same response:
“In attempting to purge themselves of their contempt, the Andersons attempted to appoint their children as trustees of the trust, but AsiaCiti removed them from acting as trustees because the event … of duress was continuing. At the June 17 hearing, the district court indicated that it believed that the Andersons remained in control of the trust and rejected their assertion that compliance with the repatriation provisions of the trust was impossible.” Id. at 1233.
The panel then addressed the core defense:
“The Andersons claim that the refusal of the foreign trustee to repatriate the trust assets to the United States, which apparently was the goal of the trust, makes their compliance with the preliminary injunction impossible.” Id. at 1239.
Its conclusion was unequivocal:
“It is readily apparent that the Andersons’ inability to comply with the district court’s repatriation order is the intended result of their own conduct— their inability to comply and the foreign trustee’s refusal to comply appears to be the precise goal of the Andersons’ trust.” Id. at 1240.
The court tied that outcome to specific drafting:
“The Andersons’ trust created the circumstances in which a foreign trustee would refuse to repatriate assets to the United States by means of so-called duress provisions.” Id. at 1239 n.9.
And it signaled the limited role of “impossibility” in this context:
“Given that these offshore trusts operate by means of frustrating domestic courts’ jurisdiction, we are unsure that we would find that the Andersons’ inability to comply with the district court’s order is a defense to a civil contempt charge. We leave for another day the resolution of this more difficult question because we find that the Andersons have not satisfied their burden of proving that compliance with the district court’s repatriation order was impossible.” Id. at 1241.
Judicial skepticism regarding “no control”
The opinion repeatedly notes doubt that a settlor truly surrendered control:
“Given these considerations, we cannot find that the district court clearly erred in finding that the Andersons’ compliance with the repatriation order was not impossible because the Andersons remain in control of their Cook Islands trust.” Id. at 1241.
“While it is possible that a rational person would send millions of dollars overseas and retain absolutely no control over the assets, we share the district court’s skepticism.” Id. at 1242.
That skepticism was informed by the overall record, including the court’s description of the Andersons’ initial position:
“The Andersons claimed that they were unable to repatriate the assets in the Cook Islands trust because they had willingly relinquished all control over the millions of dollars of commissions in order to place this money overseas in the benevolent hands of unaccountable overseers, just on the off chance that a law suit might result from their business activities.” Id. at 1231.
A candid passage the court reproduced—and its import
The panel quoted a description of how an offshore trust might be defended in U.S. court:
“Finally, the settlor should be aware that, although his trust will probably prove unassailable by domestic creditors, he may face minor hassles while defending his trust in court. In particular, if a creditor attacks an offshore trust in United States court, the settlor may face contempt of court orders during the proceedings. . . . There is a possibility that the court will . . . order the settlor to collect his assets from the trust and turn them over to the court. If the settlor does not comply with these orders, a court may hold him in contempt. However, there are ways around such a conflict. . . . The settlor could comply with the court order and ‘order’ his trustee to turn over the funds, knowing full well that the trustee will not comply with his request. Thereby, the settlor would technically comply with the court’s orders, escape contempt of court charges, and still rest assured that his assets will remain protected.” Id. at 1241.
Placed alongside the findings above, the court’s closing perspective is clear:
“Given that the Andersons’ trust is operating precisely as they intended, we are not overly sympathetic to their claims and would be hesitant to overly-restrict the district court’s discretion, and thus legitimize what the Andersons have done.” Id. at 1244.
Practical implications for U.S. families
Repatriation and contempt remain available tools. Courts will require assets “held for [a settlor’s] benefit” outside the U.S. to be returned and will use civil contempt if orders are not obeyed. Id. at 1231–32.
Drafting that disables compliance at the moment of a U.S. order invites adverse inferences. Duress provisions and similar mechanics factored centrally in the court’s analysis. Id. at 1233, 1239 & n.9, 1240–41.
Assertions of “no control” face exacting scrutiny. Where the record suggests retained influence or practical access, courts are skeptical. Id. at 1241–42.
For families weighing offshore options or reviewing existing documents, a disciplined, case-driven risk assessment is essential before any funding occurs—particularly with appreciated assets or complex reporting obligations.
Our practice conducts confidential feasibility reviews focused on control, enforcement exposure, and tax/reporting alignment, so decision-makers can proceed—onshore or offshore—with a full understanding of the legal posture reflected in Affordable Media.
Contact Dilendorf Law Firm
Dilendorf Law Firm assists tech founders, high-net-worth individuals, and cross-border families in evaluating offshore trusts and related structures—including Cook Islands trusts.
We provide confidential, fixed-scope reviews that assess control mechanics, enforcement risk (including repatriation and contempt exposure), and U.S. tax and reporting requirements before assets are moved and legal title is reassigned to an offshore trustee.
