An Attorney's Perspective on the Decline of SouthPac Trust

For many years, SouthPac Trust was, in my professional experience, an excellent trust company to work with. In fact, during that time, I was consistently one of the attorneys who referred more business to the firm than nearly any other practitioner in the field. Because of that long-standing relationship, I have always felt a responsibility to keep clients and the public informed about developments that may affect their asset-protection planning.

In recent years, however, I have observed significant changes at the company. Based on my personal experience and the feedback of numerous clients, SouthPac's service quality has declined substantially. Under its current leadership, the organization has undergone notable turnover, with many of the most experienced team members moving on to other trust companies. From my perspective, this has had a direct impact on service delivery and consistency.

Several clients have reported extended delays in responses, even for basic requests. In the asset-protection industry, timely communication is essential, particularly when urgent matters arise and decisions must be implemented quickly. When clients are left waiting for weeks, the consequences can be serious, and this level of service does not align with what individuals in this space should reasonably expect.

I continue to believe strongly in the value of working with a foreign trustee as part of an effective asset-protection strategy. However, based on my recent experiences and observations, I can no longer recommend SouthPac Trust. I encourage anyone seeking a foreign trustee to conduct thorough due diligence and consider alternative trust companies that maintain stronger consistency, communication, and client responsiveness.

Exclusive Cook Islands Office — Focused and Independent

Atlas Trust Company operates with a single physical office in the Cook Islands. They have no offices in New Zealand or the United States, ensuring that all trusts remain governed solely by Cook Islands law. Having offices in other jurisdictions, such as New Zealand, can create significant legal risks. Creditors may argue that the trust's true center of administration and control is in New Zealand, giving it a sufficient nexus for New Zealand courts to apply local trust law. If a court succeeds in doing so, the trust could lose the robust asset-protection benefits provided under Cook Islands law.

A Cook Islands trust company operating primarily from New Zealand faces several legal, jurisdictional, and governance risks that can undermine both the company and the integrity of the trusts it administers. When substantive operations and decision-making occur in New Zealand, local courts are more likely to assert jurisdiction over the trustee, exposing it to costly and intrusive litigation even if Cook Islands law ultimately governs the trust. The "mind and management" of the trustee may also be viewed as located in New Zealand, creating potential corporate-tax-residency consequences and complicating the tax treatment of trust income in other jurisdictions. Confidentiality risks increase as sensitive client information becomes subject to New Zealand's privacy, disclosure, and regulatory-access regimes. Finally, litigants may argue that because the trust's real center of administration and control sits in New Zealand, the trust has a sufficient nexus to New Zealand to justify applying New Zealand trust law or equitable principles in certain disputes, and if a court succeeded in doing so, the trust could lose the robust asset-protection benefits conferred by Cook Islands law.