USA – NEVADA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Robert E Armstrong, Zach Noland and Ian DeValliere, McDonald Carano
Elective bench trials for corporate disputes An amendment of NRS Chapter 78, governing Nevada private corporations, permits private corporations to designate “all or certain internal actions,” such as shareholder disputes or fiduciary duty claims, for trial by a judge rather than a jury. This change aligns with Nevada’s ongoing efforts to streamline complex business litigation and complements the proposed business court discussed below. For private wealth practitioners, it enhances Nevada’s appeal as a trust and business situs by offering predictable, expert adjudication for corporate governance issues often intertwined with family trusts and holding entities. The option to bypass jury trials reduces uncertainty and costs, particularly for ultra-high-net-worth families managing closely held businesses within trust struc - tures. Proposed constitutional amendment for the establishment of a business court Nevada’s Assembly Joint Resolution 8 (AJR8) pro - poses a constitutional amendment to authorise the Legislature to establish a specialised business court, a development poised to enhance the state’s private- wealth landscape. If established, the court would have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving fiduci - ary duties, shareholder rights, mergers, and commer - cial contracts. Nevada’s private-wealth practitioners anticipate that this court, with judges appointed by the Governor from nominees selected by a special nominating commission, will offer expert adjudication, streamlining complex trust and business disputes. The Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction ensures consistent rulings, bolstering Nevada’s appeal as a trust situs. The court would further consolidate Nevada’s growing edge over jurisdictions like Dela - ware for families managing trusts alongside business entities, as wealth planning increasingly intertwines with corporate governance. AJR8 positions Nevada as a premier destination for integrated private-wealth solutions. Balancing courtroom confidentiality and constitutional constraints In a child-custody matter, Falconi v Eighth Judicial District Court, the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the constitutional limits of closed courtroom proceed - ings. 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 8, 543 P.3d 92 (2024). The
Court held that a statute and related court rules (i) requiring closure of proceedings to the public and (ii) precluding exercise of judicial discretion as to whether the proceedings should be closed were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest and thus uncon - stitutional. This decision initially raised concerns that Nevada’s new sealing-and-redaction statute for trust proceed - ings, NRS 164.041, and a similar statute available exclusively for Nevada family trust companies, NRS 669A.256, may also be held unconstitutional. But both statutes may avoid such challenges simply because both are expressly subject to judicial discretion. A lat - er decision in Nester v Eighth Judicial District Court seems to have confirmed this by clarifying that the Falconi decision applies only to family-court proceed - ings and the now-void family-law statute and rules that required closure without any exercise of judicial discretion (141 Nev. Adv. Op. 4, 562 P.3d 1071, 1076 (2025)). The continuing ascent of Nevada silent trusts Nevada’s silent trusts, enabled by NRS 163.004, con - tinue to attract ultra-high-net-worth families who seek to shield beneficiaries from wealth-related risks while maximising privacy. The Nevada Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Matter of 23 Partners Trust I, which clarified that discretionary beneficiaries are not entitled to accounts or trust instruments and may therefore be left entirely unaware of a trust’s existence, continues to bolster the adoption of silent trusts in 2025. These trusts allow settlors to delay beneficiary awareness of trust terms, protecting younger generations from improvidence, manipulation, or external pressures. Nevada’s 2023 elective sealing and redaction stat - utes further enhance confidentiality by automatically shielding court filings, such as trust instruments and accounts, from public view upon election, without requiring judicial approval. Nevada practitioners also increasingly use designated representatives to indi - rectly communicate with beneficiaries of trusts admin - istered by Nevada family trust companies under NRS Chapter 669A while (silently) satisfying notice and accounting requirements. This robust privacy frame - work gives Nevada an edge over jurisdictions like Delaware, where sealing processes are less stream - lined. As families prioritise confidentiality amid grow -
676 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook