Roughly $84 trillion is expected to pass from Baby Boomers to heirs in the coming two decades. The money will move. Control often won’t – unless families and advisors treat governance and jurisdiction as real risk, not paperwork.  

A recent article authored by the Global Partnership Family Offices , an organization that provides investment management advice for ultra-high net worth individuals and wealthy families, highlights a case in Liechtenstein where family disputes and foreign courts provide real risks for Baby Boomers especially a large percentage with blended or stepfamilies.

Liechtenstein built a brand on founder control and business-friendly courts. Its foundations are sold as premium: private, orderly, hard to crack. Zygmunt Solorz just learned how fast that promise can fail.

Solorz, the Polish billionaire behind media group Polsat, placed key holdings into two Liechtenstein foundations. Family conflict followed. Solorz says his three children pushed him into signing succession documents he did not want. He revoked a signed document a day later. The courts still ruled against him. He appealed. In December 2025, the court again sided with his children, stripping him of control over companies he built.

Treat that as family drama and you miss what it signals to every advisor using “Liechtenstein” as shorthand for safety. This was a high-end vehicle in a jurisdiction marketed as predictable. If a founder’s stated intent can be overridden once relatives lawyer up, the structure stops being a shield and starts looking like a lever.

Liechtenstein’s product is trust. Its economy and global standing depend on being seen as neutral, rules-based, and dependable. A headline case that ends with a founder losing his empire invites a harsher reading: courts that can surprise you, and a system that may not protect investor rights the way clients assume. That is a problem for a place still trying to shake “tax haven” stigma, new scandals suggesting complicities in international sanctions evasion, and any hint of selective justice.
 
Clients pay for privacy and predictability. Liechtenstein, right now, is offering neither. The Solorz outcome puts both in doubt and plants a simple fear in every boardroom: the document you undo tomorrow may still bind you forever.

Capital doesn’t panic; it reroutes. Families rarely announce exits. They redesign ownership, split key powers across more than one forum, and rewrite plans so one disputed signature cannot flip the table – and no one jurisdiction can imperil access to their assets.

Rival jurisdictions will likely not waste the opening. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, and the UAE have competing offerings ready to absorb displaced capital. Solorz is a marquee name in Central and Eastern Europe; if he attacks the outcome publicly, the message will travel.

For wealth managers, the takeaway is blunt: a sleek structure cannot rescue a weak governance plan. Fix the pressure points now, before a succession handoff becomes a takeover.

Start by tracing control. List every decision that changes beneficiaries, board members, voting rights, or who can hire and fire the people who hold the keys. Map who can initiate changes, who must approve them, what quorum applies, and what happens if the founder’s capacity is later challenged. Get it on one page; if the client can’t explain it back, it isn’t ready.

Add speed bumps for major shifts. Transfers of control should trigger independent legal advice, a capacity check when circumstances call for it, and a short cooling-off period with a reaffirmation before changes take effect. Lock down “emergency” powers that let a small group rewrite governance in a day. Keep a clean decision trail that can be produced fast in a dispute.

Write rules for the day the family can’t agree. Set interim control so the operating company keeps functioning even if relatives stop speaking. Add deadlock breakers, clear succession triggers, and limits on amendments during active disputes. Choose the dispute forum on purpose – court, arbitration, or a hybrid – and put the timelines and standing rules in writing.

Diversify jurisdictional risk the same way clients diversify portfolios. One country, one court system, one set of rules is a concentrated bet. Spread key functions across more than one place. If a single ruling can crater control, the structure is too brittle.

No plan can make relatives get along. A good plan makes it harder to seize control and easier to keep the business running when tempers flare.
 
The Solorz ruling is the warning shot: your wealth plan isn’t judged on signing day. It’s judged under pressure.
 
About the author
Dr George E Bogden is a senior fellow at the Yorktown Institute and a fellow at the Steamboat Institute, and was the executive director of the Office of Trade Relations at US Customs and Border Protection. He is a consultant and attorney known for his contributions to international affairs and trade policy. His career encompasses significant roles in government, academia, and private law practice.

Dr George E Bogden