Tag: estate trustee
In Monday’s blog, I noted the increasing prevalence of new on-line businesses serving to assist estate trustees with the location of estate assets. Of course, locating the asset is just the first step. The estate trustee has to then manage the asset. In most instances this involves liquidating the asset or distributing it in specie to the beneficiaries depending on the testator’s intention.
Shares held by a deceased in a private company present a particular challenge to an estate trustee. Should they be sold or should the estate trustee participate in the business as a going concern?. This quandry, if the will gives no guidance, is compounded when the deceased holds the majority of shares and leaves a controlling interest in such a corporation.
While not always a simple question to answer, in such circumstances it seems self-evident (and just makes good business sense) for the estate trustee to be a director of the company. In such capacity, the executor is positioned to watch over the management of the business and protect this asset of the estate. The issue was addressed in an oft-quoted excerpt from Lucking’s Will Trusts (Re) (1967) All E.R. 726, where the Court states:
“Now what steps, if any, does a reasonably prudent man who finds himself a majority shareholder in a private company take with regard to the management of the company’s affairs? He does not, I think, content himself with such information as to the management of the company’s affairs as he is entitled to as a shareholder, but ensures that he is represented on the board.”
Have a great day,
I recently attended a client meeting where the issue of mediation was hotly debated. My client expressed reluctance in participating in a process with a party that my client regarded as intransigent and obstinate. My client also thought that proposing mediation would suggest to the other side that our case was weak and we were looking for a way out. After persuading my client that mediation was at least worth considering, a more substantive debate arose as to when to mediate. This debate deserves some comment.
In many ways, mediation is all "the rage" and early mediation is especially championed in the estate setting. In general, society is reluctant to see family members fight over what is perceived as a windfall. The courts reflect and promote this view. My colleagues and I have all blogged on the merits of mediation and I won’t repeat them here. But parties can mediate too early. Often parties attend mediation without knowing the full extent of the estate assets or merely having a vague idea. Liquid assets might be readily ascertainable, but have all the liquid assets been uncovered i.e. have proper inquiries been made? Assets such as art, vintage cars, or family antiques are harder to evaluate and may require a professional appraisal, all of which takes time.
Moreover, the parties have often not exchanged relevant documents before attending mediation, something which they would be required to do if mediation took place at a later stage. Exchanging relevant documents will help a party better understand the risks they face in pursuing litigation, the weakness of their case, and the strength of their opponent’s case (and vice versa). Forewarned is forearmed.
Back to my client meeting where it was decided that it was too early to mediate. An allegation had been made that an estate trustee had stolen money from the estate. However, no one was quite sure how much was taken and whether the estate trustee acted alone or in concert with an investment advisor. Some sort of accounting was required, supported by back-up documentation before mediation could take place and ultimately be effective. A court order might even have to be obtained to get at the necessary information. Mediation would happen, but at the right time with the right information. It is imperative that a party know their case so that they know when to mediate and how best to settle.
Justin de Vries