By George E. Bogden
Over the next two decades, an estimated $84 trillion will pass from Baby Boomers to their children, grandchildren and other heirs. That wealth will move. The bigger question is whether control of that wealth will move as intended.
For families, founders and advisors, that distinction matters. Estate planning is too often treated as a matter of documents, signatures and tax efficiency. But the real test is governance: who controls the assets, who can change the plan, which courts have authority and what happens when family members disagree.
A recent article by Global Partnership Family Offices, an organization that provides insight to ultra-high-net-worth families and their advisors, highlighted a case in Liechtenstein that should be required reading for Baby Boomers, particularly those with blended families, stepchildren or complicated succession plans.
Liechtenstein has long marketed itself as a stable, business-friendly jurisdiction for family foundations and wealth structures. Its appeal rests on privacy, predictability and founder intent. The case of Polish billionaire Zygmunt Solorz shows how quickly those assumptions can be tested.
Solorz, the founder of the Polsat media group and one of Central Europe’s most prominent entrepreneurs, placed major holdings into two Liechtenstein foundations. Then came a family dispute. Solorz has said his three children pressured him into signing succession documents he did not support. He revoked one of those documents the next day. Yet the courts ruled against him. He appealed, and in December 2025, the court again sided with his children, leaving him stripped of control over companies he built.
It is tempting to dismiss the matter as a private family fight. That would be a mistake.
For wealth managers and family offices, the case raises a much broader concern: what happens when a sophisticated structure in a supposedly stable jurisdiction does not protect the founder’s intent? If a signed document can survive an immediate revocation, and if control can shift despite the founder’s objections, then the structure is no longer simply a shield. It can become the instrument through which control is taken away.
That is a serious issue for any jurisdiction whose value proposition depends on trust.
Liechtenstein’s reputation rests on the perception that it is neutral, rules-based and dependable. Families do not move assets there casually. They do so because they believe the legal environment will protect privacy, uphold intent and reduce uncertainty. A high-profile case ending with a founder losing control of his own business empire complicates that narrative.
It also comes at a sensitive time. Liechtenstein continues to work against the lingering perception of being a tax haven, while recent controversies have raised fresh questions about whether its financial system is insulated enough from abuse, including sanctions-related concerns. In that environment, even the appearance of unpredictable or selective justice can do lasting damage.
Clients pay for confidence. They pay for discretion. Above all, they pay for certainty. The Solorz case creates doubt on all three fronts.
The lesson is not that every family should abandon Liechtenstein or any other single jurisdiction. The lesson is that no jurisdiction should be treated as a substitute for strong governance.
Capital is mobile. Much like people vote with their feet, they invest and relocate wealth the same way. Families do not always announce when confidence has been shaken. They simply redesign structures, move authority, divide control across jurisdictions and rewrite plans so that one court, one signature or one family faction cannot determine everything.
Competing financial centers will understand the opportunity. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates all have mature offerings for global families looking for stability, flexibility and legal predictability. If prominent founders begin to question whether Liechtenstein still delivers on its promise, capital will not wait for a press release. It will quietly look elsewhere.
For advisors, the practical takeaway is clear: a polished structure cannot compensate for a fragile governance plan.
Start with control. Families should map every decision that can affect beneficiaries, board appointments, voting rights, amendments, asset transfers or the ability to hire and remove the people who hold real authority. Who can initiate a change? Who must approve it? What quorum is required? What happens if the founder’s capacity is challenged? If the client cannot explain the answer clearly, the structure is not ready.
Next, build safeguards around major changes. Transfers of control should not be executed casually or under pressure. They should include independent legal advice, capacity reviews where appropriate and a cooling-off period before irreversible decisions take effect. Emergency powers should be narrow, clearly defined and incapable of being used by a small group to rewrite governance overnight.
The paper trail matters, too. In a dispute, the family that can show a clear record of intent, advice, review and reaffirmation will be in a stronger position than the family relying on assumptions or verbal understandings.
Families also need rules for the moment when relationships break down. Succession plans should include interim control provisions so operating companies can keep functioning during a dispute. They should include deadlock mechanisms, defined succession triggers and limits on amendments once litigation or formal conflict begins. The dispute forum should be chosen deliberately, whether that means court, arbitration or a hybrid process, with timelines and standing rules spelled out in advance.
Finally, families should treat jurisdictional risk the way they treat investment risk. Concentration is dangerous. One country, one court system and one legal framework can become a vulnerability. Key powers can be divided. Oversight can be layered. Certain assets or decision rights can be placed in different forums. If a single ruling can upend control of the entire structure, the plan is too brittle.
No estate plan can force relatives to agree. No foundation can eliminate family conflict. But a strong plan can make it harder for any one faction to seize control and easier for the business to continue operating when conflict erupts.
The Solorz ruling is more than a cautionary tale from abroad. It is a warning to Baby Boomers, founders and wealth advisors everywhere.
A wealth plan is not proven when the documents are signed. It is proven when the family is under pressure.
George E. Bogden is the former executive director of the Office of Trade Relations at U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the second Trump administration.
