I hope this is the appropriate place to post this. Let me begin by saying that I realize nothing is full proof and as with almost everything in life there is always a series of trade offs.
I am semi-retired and would like to proactively protect some of my assets in the unlikely event they should ever become threatened. While I don’t foresee this happening, I think having some basic asset protection would be prudent.
It appears that Nevis and Cook Island LLCs at least on the surface, provide some basic asset protection, limiting remedies against the assets held in that LLC to charging orders. Unfortunately, certain local jurisdictions, (as occurred with a recent case in Florida) may not view an LLC, particularly a single person LLC as a legitimate, separate entity. It has been suggested that a certificated LLC would address this issue.
What I would like to know is which of the above jurisdictions is the most trustworthy and stable for establishing an LLC that would essentially “hold” assets.
Of course I would be grateful for any insights regarding the above
I am semi-retired and would like to proactively protect some of my assets in the unlikely event they should ever become threatened. While I don’t foresee this happening, I think having some basic asset protection would be prudent.
It appears that Nevis and Cook Island LLCs at least on the surface, provide some basic asset protection, limiting remedies against the assets held in that LLC to charging orders. Unfortunately, certain local jurisdictions, (as occurred with a recent case in Florida) may not view an LLC, particularly a single person LLC as a legitimate, separate entity. It has been suggested that a certificated LLC would address this issue.
What I would like to know is which of the above jurisdictions is the most trustworthy and stable for establishing an LLC that would essentially “hold” assets.
Of course I would be grateful for any insights regarding the above