Who Holds Wealth Managers To Account When Family Interests Divide?

The battle over the late Russian businessman Oleg Burlakov's €3 billion fortune, which includes the superyacht Black Pearl and a Monaco penthouse, has continued to play out in courts across Europe. A disputed handwritten will, rival family claims and proceedings over a reported $1 billion property claim illustrate how bitterly contested inheritance can become.

Such disputes raise questions beyond who inherits the money, particularly when family wealth is managed by professional advisers. In the United States, qualifying family offices are exempt from ordinary investment adviser oversight under rules stemming from the Dodd-Frank reforms.

As beneficiaries develop competing interests, the question is whether family ties alone provide sufficient protection over how their wealth is managed and who is held accountable.

Sharing Wealth Is Not Sharing Control in the Murdoch Succession

While inheritance battles can centre on who receives a family fortune, the Murdoch dispute exposed another source of tension over who gets to control it. The family's succession battle attracted worldwide attention as Rupert Murdoch's children fought over the future of the family's media businesses.

A September 2025 settlement ended the trust litigation, providing cash for three departing beneficiaries and giving Lachlan Murdoch sole voting control over the remaining trust-held shares in Fox and News Corp.

Sharing in the Murdoch fortune was not the same as controlling it. Adviser oversight would not have settled that struggle; clearer information and accountability could, however, have helped beneficiaries scrutinise decisions affecting their interests.

Whom Managers Serve Comes Into Focus With Merrimac

The same need for clarity applies when professional managers oversee family wealth. Diverging priorities do not, however, automatically bring the office managing it within ordinary investment adviser oversight.

Under the Dodd-Frank exclusion and the SEC's 2011 rule, eligibility depends on family ownership, control and whom an office serves, not whether beneficiaries want the same things from their money.

Professional management can also introduce tensions of its own. Some beneficiaries may receive less information than others, while valuations can differ, particularly for hard-to-sell assets. Managers' pay and divided loyalties can further complicate decisions, making it essential to establish whose interests they must protect and how those potential conflicts are assessed.

A lawsuit against Merrimac Corporation brings these concerns into focus. In September 2026, Holland Holding Company, acting as assignee of claims held by a deceased businessman's first wife, sued Merrimac and other defendants in a New York state court.

The complaint alleges that the businessman's second wife and their son diverted assets for their benefit, with the knowing assistance of Merrimac and its president, Louis Arovas. These are allegations in the complaint, not findings by the court.

The complaint alleges that the revocation, creation and amendment of several trusts excluded the first wife and particular grandchildren from assets intended for them, while other children remained beneficiaries subject to provisions imposing financial penalties for challenges to the arrangements. The loss of inheritance is presented as a consequence of alleged fraud and fiduciary misconduct, not simply a disagreement over who should inherit.

The allegations raise questions about professional managers' loyalties when one branch of a family is accused of using the structures they oversee for its own benefit.

The wider issue is whether managers' decisions reflect their obligations to those whose assets and interests they oversee, rather than simply the wishes of the controlling branch. The complaint's request for an account of assets and transactions illustrates why access to information about the management and transfer of assets matters when those interests diverge.

Business and Trustee Duties Overlap in the Rollins Dispute

Control becomes more complicated when relatives running family businesses also serve as trustees for other family members. In the 2014 Rollins case, Wayne Rollins's sons held both roles, overseeing businesses in which trusts for his grandchildren held stakes. Some of the grandchildren sued, alleging that decisions taken as business owners had harmed their interests as beneficiaries.

The dispute shows how difficult those loyalties can become when wealth passes between generations. After a founder's death or incapacity, different branches may disagree over payments, investment strategy, what assets are worth and who controls them. Relatives acting as both business owners and trustees must then navigate interests that no longer necessarily align.

Beneficiaries need to know whether their relatives are acting as business owners or trustees, and whose interests guide their decisions. Clear procedures and records could help clarify that distinction alongside existing fiduciary obligations, making decisions easier to review. Such safeguards could have helped the Rollins family understand how these overlapping responsibilities shaped the management of the grandchildren's inheritance.

Are Existing Legal Protections Sufficient?

From the battle over Oleg Burlakov's €3 billion estate to the Rollins, Merrimac and Murdoch disputes, bitter disagreements over family fortunes show how quickly shared wealth can become a source of division. These cases collectively raise questions about whether existing protections are sufficient when relatives have competing financial interests.

They also highlight practical issues that a review of the Dodd-Frank exclusion could address, from relatives balancing business and trustee responsibilities to beneficiaries seeking access to information and clarity over whom professional managers serve.

Updating the rules would not settle inheritance disputes or repair fractured family relationships. Clearer safeguards, however, could help beneficiaries understand and challenge decisions before disagreements escalate.

The case for continued exemption should rest on whether those protections are adequate, rather than simply on the assumption that members of the same family share the same priorities.