APT Jurisdictional Comparison (as of July 1997) - by Engel Reiman & Lockwood

Provisions

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii)

(ix)

(x)

(xi)

(xii)

(xiii)

(xiv)

(xv)

*presently  undetermined  Jurisdiction

Statutory recogni- tion of different classes of creditors

Specific Statute of Elizabeth override provisions

Statute of limitations on challenging an APT

Statutory certainty that settlor can be a beneficiary

Statutory certainty that settlor can retain some degree of control

Statutory certainty regarding non- recognition of foreign judgements

Who has burden of proving fraudulent intent

What standard of proof is applicable in establishing fraudulent intent

Trust remains valid if fraudulent transfers determined to have taken place

Retroactive protection afforded immigrant trusts

Statutory certainty regarding requirements for freezing assets for an APT

Effect or Importance of post- transfer solvency

Binding effect of choice of law

Forced heirship override provisions

Community property proviosion

Anguilla

x

x

x

Bahamas

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Barbados

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Belize

x

x

x

x

x

Bermuda

x

x

x

x

x

x

Cayman

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Cook Islands

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Cyprus

x

x

x

x

x

x

Gibraltar

x

x

x

x

x

Labuan

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Marshall  Islands

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Mauritius

x

x

x

x

x

x

*

Nevis

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Niue

x

x

x

x

x

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

*

x

x

x

x

Seychelles

x

x

x

x

x

x

Turks & Caicos

x

x

x

x

x